America's Role.

[Guest]

Time to take out the garbage as far as I am concerned. Take out Saddam in Iraq, take out Syria and then deal with North Korea, and then of course China, but China can be dealt with economically, no military need be used there, YET.

Saddam is a danger, have no doubts of that, he has used chemical weapons against Iran, and his own civilians. He needs to be taken out, Iraq needs to be split up between the Kurds and what's left of the Iraqi population. Turkey can keep the peace in that part of the world as we create 2 separate governments in Iraq and dismantle it's military and WMD inventory. Then we leave and allow them to do whatever they need to do in order to create a reasonable government for themselves.

BUT, we allow Turkey and the Kurds to keep the oil fields and split the profits between them, and if they feel like sharing with their Iraqi brothers, well, then so be it.

[Herbie]

Hell why not take out Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, and Yugoslavia. Heck just go ahead and start World War III. The last time a country had set it's goals on taking over a similar number of countries it was called World War II.

The United States government does not have friends, it has only interests. Most of them are Oil interests. Do any of you actually believe that the United States would care if there wasn't oil under the ground of many of these countries?

If we stop killing these people and stop interfering in their nations/affairs, the terrorists will go home. What is the difference between a "sucicide bomber" and "errant bomb" that kills 50 people at a wedding dropped by a US fighter?

Howeverer your solution is to create more problems, offend and kill more people with "errant" bombs, and try to force people to love the United States.

Your United States now stands on the brink of dictatorship, your inalienable rights have been alienated. Your President is a corporate crook, whose honesty during the last elections is debatable, who is in bed with major oil companies and the military/industrial complex.

The only people who benefitted from the events of 911, are the United States Government, the military and the oil industry. Would it surprise you that most nations of the world now hold the United States in very low regard. Would it surprise you that eight of the nineteen hijackers of 911 are alive? Yes, thats right, they are ALIVE, they were not in the United States on 911 and many of them are airline pilots who work for foreign countries. So just WHO was onboard, who hijacked the planes, why do the official passenger list from the airlines not list the hijackers? Why did no one claim responsibility, oh sure we claim that Osama bin laden did, but WE TRAINED HIM. Osama was trained and hired by the CIA during the war with Russia in Afgahnistan. We gave him the weapons which we are now destroying. His family is personal friends with your President, hey but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Has it occured to you that your country is accumulating more and more blood on its hands every day. You have killed more than a million Iraqi's, killed several thousand civilians as well as completely destroying the public infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals, power, oil) of Yugoslavia.

It's all for US interests, so that makes it all right. It's okay for the CIA to assasinate foreign leaders, thats their job. So long as you get the last of the worlds oil.

The Truth Hurts but don't take my word for it.

What Really Happened

P.S.

Jaguar, Saddam has never been found to be in posession of Weapons of Mass destruction, the UN has looked but can't find them. Saddam did not use biological weapons on the Kurds, that is a myth and a fabrication. What military do you think they have left a couple hundred tanks, a few planes and few thousand soldiers. Can you name one thing that Saddam has done since the gulf war that is a demonstrable threat to this nation? I can't think of any, but we use depleted uranium weapons on his military and the civilian population is now experiencing birth defects as a result of radioactivity. Guess that makes us the good guys eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Time to take out the garbage as far as I am concerned. Take out Saddam in Iraq, take out Syria and then deal with North Korea, and then of course China, but China can be dealt with economically, no military need be used there, YET.

Saddam is a danger, have no doubts of that, he has used chemical weapons against Iran, and his own civilians. He needs to be taken out, Iraq needs to be split up between the Kurds and what's left of the Iraqi population. Turkey can keep the peace in that part of the world as we create 2 separate governments in Iraq and dismantle it's military and WMD inventory. Then we leave and allow them to do whatever they need to do in order to create a reasonable government for themselves.

BUT, we allow Turkey and the Kurds to keep the oil fields and split the profits between them, and if they feel like sharing with their Iraqi brothers, well, then so be it.

---

[Guest $iLk]

The US Government's interests are indeed in the oil. We devote so much time in rarely respecting the Middle Eastern countries national boundaries, and forcing our will upon them, while all the while exclaiming that it's for those poor mistreated people in the region.

There are other countries where killing of citizens by their government is a normal occurence, we aren't stepping in there because they aren't sitting their fat behinds on a huge oil depot like in the Middle East.

Regardless of what goes on in another country, do we really have the right - constitutionally or in the interests of national sovereign territory - to go in and impose our desires and beliefs on those people?

If Sadam mistreats his people, why does it all the sudden become the United State's duty to step in?

We have no right any more than Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, or anyone who makes the same moves.

We are too trigger happy when it comes to unconfirmed reports, and biased "eye witnesses" to things that go on in our "enemies" countries. We are being blindsided by what the government wishes you to support. Not what the reality of world policy is.

Jaguar, even you have to admit you wouldn't like it if Great Britain decided they wanted to send "peacekeepers" to the United States in order to facilitate harmony between our citizens.

If we wouldn't let them, why should any country allow us?

It is a double standard we are perpetrating, and which is an injustice not only to the aggreived country, but also to our people here in the United States who are blindly throwing away their freedoms to fight this invisible specter known as Terror.

Our rights are disappearing, slowly at some points, and rapidly on other points, and the American people are blindly following the government who is constantly perpetrating these crimes against the citizens of this great nation.

I should know because I've been one of those, but I've been looking at things more carefully lately. Conservative, Liberal - neither side is really helping us. What we need are those who follow and respect the constitution, not use it as a mandate to usurp it.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

The United States government does not have friends, it has only interests. Most of them are Oil interests. Do any of you actually believe that the United States would care if there wasn't oil under the ground of many of these countries?

---

It's a good thing Canada is "good" considering we are their #1 source of oil (yes, I said #1)

quote:

---

If we stop killing these people and stop interfering in their nations/affairs, the terrorists will go home.

---

that's what I think myself. Thery hate us for a reason. they hate us because we interfere in their matters.

quote:

---

It's all for US interests, so that makes it all right

---

Yeah, who cares about the rest of the world.

quote:

---

There are other countries where killing of citizens by their government is a normal occurence, we aren't stepping in there because they aren't sitting their fat behinds on a huge oil depot like in the Middle East.

---

Africa right?

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Africa right?

---

North Africa has oil too. That's where the European oil companies go out to play.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

quote:

---

Africa right?

---

North Africa has oil too. That's where the European oil companies go out to play.

---

Well I said Africa, but I was mostly speaking about "south of the sahara"

[Guest]

quote:

---

Saddam did not use biological weapons on the Kurds, that is a myth and a fabrication.

---

Where did I say Biological weapons? HMM?

He used CHEMICAL weapons against his own Kurdish Citizens, and that is true, it has been proven, whether you like to admit it or not. There is a big difference between Biological and Chemical.

I think you all are bunch of dreamers, because if the US doesn't do something, the world will explode in about 10 years into something that you don't want to see. It is better to step in now and handle it then it is to wait and watch it turn into a worldwide catastrophe.

[Herbie]

Ooops, sorry I should have said Saddam never attacked the Kurds with any biological or chemical weapon. This is a MYTH, used to justify continuing sanctions and support for a future war. Here is some supporting references:

Did he gas his own people?

Another link

And if he did gas his own people where did he obtain the knowledge and materials to do so?

US Sold Bio.Chem weapons

Interesting how the whole anthrax thing has been swept under the rug. US government wouldn't want to admit that its their own anthrax now would they.

On another note:

Canada exports more crude oil to the US then it imports from the US. We also are building pipelines to the US for oil and natural gas exports, many of them have been in operation for decades.

Stats Canada Weblink

quote:

---

From the above website

Exports of crude oil increased by 10.3% over 1999. Exports accounted for 62.7% of all Canadian crude oil production. Canada remains one of the major suppliers of crude oil to the United States, along with Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.

---

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herbie:

Your United States now stands on the brink of dictatorship, your inalienable rights have been alienated. Your President is a corporate crook, whose honesty during the last elections is debatable, who is in bed with major oil companies and the military/industrial complex.

The only people who benefitted from the events of 911, are the United States Government, the military and the oil industry. Would it surprise you that most nations of the world now hold the United States in very low regard. Would it surprise you that eight of the nineteen hijackers of 911 are alive? Yes, thats right, they are ALIVE, they were not in the United States on 911 and many of them are airline pilots who work for foreign countries. So just WHO was onboard, who hijacked the planes, why do the official passenger list from the airlines not list the hijackers? Why did no one claim responsibility, oh sure we claim that Osama bin laden did, but WE TRAINED HIM. Osama was trained and hired by the CIA during the war with Russia in Afgahnistan. We gave him the weapons which we are now destroying. His family is personal friends with your President, hey but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

---

Well, I guess i'm lucky i'm going to join the USAF in a few years. I'll be on the winning side no matter how you look at it.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

I think you all are bunch of dreamers, because if the US doesn't do something, the world will explode in about 10 years into something that you don't want to see. It is better to step in now and handle it then it is to wait and watch it turn into a worldwide catastrophe.

---

I am not for doing nothing! I am simply against invasion, bombing, and economic sanctions. You say we shouldn't wait for it to turn into a catastrophe, but the sanctions and the bombings have already created a catastrophe, and invasion will only escalate it. If you want real democracy in Iraq, then Saddam must be overthrown by the Iraqi people in a popular uprising, otherwise the new government is guaranteed to be another authoritarian regime in a parliamentary disguise. The least that the West can do to support the Iraqi civilians is to lift the economic sanctions and tighten the military sanctions, because the people cannot revolt as long as they are dependant on the Oil for Food program for survival.

[Epsilon 5]

True. Dictators just love being given sanctions. Dictators are not affected by sanctions, the people under then are. And the people start to hate the countries sanctioning them.

Eventually, it goes like this :

1 - A country is imposed sanctions

2 - The dictator goes to his multi-million dollars valued villa to drink some early 1900' wine

3 - The people start to starve, or run out of goods.

4 - The people are angry at the source of sanctions

5 - The dictator uses the hate created by the sanctions to build up patriotism, an army, and uses pity from the rest of the world to sound "deeply affected"

The people cannot cause any kind of popular uprising if they are starving or out of material/money to make weapons of some kind.

[CommanderJohnson]

That's why you kill the dictator, then lift all the sanctions. No dictator=no problem with the country rebuilding. Just kill off Saddam and his cronies, then make a new government. Or for all of you "western puppet government" bad people, then remove his cronies, then leave the country without a government, then let THEM decide on it. Do you really think a popular uprising isn't going to cost lives? Saddam has the weapons, remember?

[Menchise]

quote:

---

That's why you kill the dictator, then lift all the sanctions. No dictator=no problem with the country rebuilding. Just kill off Saddam and his cronies, then make a new government. Or for all of you "western puppet government" bad people, then remove his cronies, then leave the country without a government, then let THEM decide on it.

---

Do you honestly believe that a military force, whether it's from the US government or the exiled Iraqi officers, is going to just let go of its power after defeating Saddam? That is not going to happen, especially with Iraq's strategic value.

At best, you'll have a pseudo-parliamentary central government where the membership is stacked in favour of one group (e.g. Afghanistan). At worst, you'll have another dictatorship.

quote:

---

Do you really think a popular uprising isn't going to cost lives? Saddam has the weapons, remember?

---

Of course it would cost lives, but compared to invasion it would be virtually bloodless.

[Lotharr]

I see it like this. American's are living good. We are high and we don't want to come down. Current generations in power have no idea what it means to have limited resources. I fear for the world when our standard of living falls in response to economic partnerships that are being made in response to our superiority.

We will bomb, subvert, donate money / food etc to maintain our position. We will focus on the good and rationalize the bad (if anyone even hears what's really going on).

A nation of collective self interest. Good people who don't know any better. Don't have better choices, and want to hide from the certain truths.

Policy makers and cohorts will give people reasons to continue in the manner they see fit. Or there will be so much debate that one walks away confused.

Pretty cynical picture but I can't feel any other way at present.....maybe one day a new leader will stand up....and hopefully not get shot.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

Do you honestly believe that a military force, whether it's from the US government or the exiled Iraqi officers, is going to just let go of its power after defeating Saddam? That is not going to happen, especially with Iraq's strategic value.

---

Compare the above to my response.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you really think a popular uprising isn't going to cost lives? Saddam has the weapons, remember?

---

Of course it would cost lives, but compared to invasion it would be virtually bloodless.

---

Do you honestly believe that a soverign nation, that wants Iraq to stop being a threat, is going to just wait for the people of Iraq is rise up? That is not going to happen, especially when there is NO guarntee they will rise up before there's a catastrophe.

Yes, it's common sense that the military would take over if we took out Saddam and left. But it's also common sense that we should act for OUR best interests and NOT ASSUME that the population will rise up.

[ 07-17-2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Policy makers and cohorts will give people reasons to continue in the manner they see fit. Or there will be so much debate that one walks away confused.

Pretty cynical picture but I can't feel any other way at present.....maybe one day a new leader will stand up....and hopefully not get shot.

---

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I disagree with a few things that you wrote (time for more debate and more confusion ).

First, debating is healthy, even when it merely causes confusion, because that confusion prompts an examination or re-examination of ideas. After all, if one's ideas were so solid, then why did one walk away confused instead of more certain? It is in our attempts to answer such questions that we can learn new stuff.

Secondly, waiting for a new leader to fix things is not healthy, even if it's a good one with a bullet-proof vest, because that elevation of leadership prompts passivity among the people. Passivity in politics leads to a lack of substantial debate, hence it generates a complacent certainty about ideas that are never questioned. If we never question any ideas, then we can't learn any new stuff.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe that a soverign nation, that wants Iraq to stop being a threat, is going to just wait for the people of Iraq is rise up? That is not going to happen, especially when there is NO guarntee they will rise up before there's a catastrophe.

---

That argument is based on the relentlessly challenged assumptions that Iraq is a threat and that a catastrophe is not already happening as a result of economic sanctions.

quote:

---

Yes, it's common sense that the military would take over if we took out Saddam and left. But it's also common sense that we should act for OUR best interests and NOT ASSUME that the population will rise up.

---

In other words, you're saying that it's in the interests of the USA to assume that the population will not rise up, because that assumption rationalizes the invasion and subsequent domination of Iraq by the US government.

I disagree with the negative assumption. It is common sense that the Iraqi people will act for their best interests and rise up against Saddam. The economic sanctions are preventing this, among other things.

[ 07-17-2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Guest]

This was an excellent article, sorry folks, but as far as I am concerned, Europe, Australia, Canada, and other countries involved in the same political morass that EU countries are getting into are making themselves irrelevant, totally irrelevant. Here's the article.

quote:

---

Whatever the current burning issue is - trade with Iran, war with Iraq, support for Israel, building a missile defense system, accepting the International Criminal Court - Americans and West Europeans often find themselves on opposite sides of the argument.

Americans tend to dismiss the Europeans as soft-minded appeasers lacking moral fiber or strategic vision. In turn, Europeans depict Americans as cowboys under the sway of a "culture of death."

These current attitudes tend to be seen as immutable facts of life, arising out of the respective national characters. But these differences are hardly permanent. Two centuries ago, when Americans acted cautiously around the tough-guy Europeans, the roles were roughly reversed.

Today's attitudes, Robert Kagan writes in a brilliant analysis in the Hoover Institution's "Policy Review," follow logically from deeper realities. In particular, they result from two post-1945 developments so momentous they tend to go unnoted:

* Europe is weak: For 500 years before 1945, Europe dominated the world. Tiny Portugal and Holland took turns ruling the seas. Mid-sized Britain and France built empires that spanned the globe. But that was then.

Today, the European Union spends far more on social problems than on arms. Despite a population and an economy roughly similar to America's, it is a "military pygmy" that lacks the ability to project force or even handle a minor problem in its own neighborhood (as the Balkan fiascos revealed).

In contrast, Americans have continued massively investing in defense, creating a true superpower no other state can challenge. "In military terms there is only one player on the field that counts," observes Yale historian Paul Kennedy. Looking at the contrast between the United States and the rest of the world, Kennedy finds that "Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing."

This huge gap in capabilities causes Europeans and Americans to approach problems very differently. In their strength, Americans predictably see it as normal and legitimate to use force against enemy states such as Iraq. In their weakness, Europeans no less predictably find this approach worrisome and even immoral.

* Europe is post-modern: For the 80 years before 1945, the demon of German aggression haunted Europe, causing two world wars. Then, through a lengthy process of negotiation, multilateralism, building commercial ties and applying international law, the Europeans engineered what Kagan calls "perhaps the greatest feat of international politics ever achieved" by integrating Germany into a totally peaceable Western European state system.

As the German lion lay down with the French lamb, Europeans widely congratulated themselves on a world-historical breakthrough and concluded that their future global mission is to develop a "postmodern system" that resolves problems without even the hint of force. (Along the way, they conveniently forgot that this transformation was only made possible because U.S. forces defeated Germany.) They aspire, Kagan argues, to replicate their success on a global scale, by taming a North Korea or an Iraq as they did Germany.

From this vantage point, American use of force challenges the universal validity of Europe's soft approach. Worse: if the European methods of cajoling and paying off adversaries do not always work - as they clearly do not - this suggests that Europe's own hope for perpetual peace among states may be illusory. The European Union's highly emotional reaction to American use of force derives in large part, then, from its horror at facing war again in Europe.

The differences, in brief, are stark: Americans are from Mars; Europeans, from Venus. Europeans spend their money on social services, Americans continue to devote large sums to the military. Europeans draw lessons from their successful pacifying of post-1945 Germany; Americans draw lessons from their defeat of Nazi Germany and of the Soviet bloc. Kagan's insights have important implications:

* U.S.-European differences are not transitory, but long-term.

* They are likely to grow with time.

* Europe is highly unlikely to develop a military power to rival America's.

* As Europe settles into strategic irrelevance, Americans need pay it less and less attention.

* Contrarily, because Washington so predominates, it should make gestures to win European goodwill.

* NATO is little more than a shell.

* Americans should look increasingly to countries outside Europe - Turkey, Israel and India come first to mind - for meaningful military alliances.

---

Europe and others are now irrelavant, the US Russia, Turkey, and Israel as well as India, will be the new superpowers in the world today and the future.

The US and Russia alliance that is building up, should scare the heck out of the EU, because it will make it look amateurish compared to the economic and military might that will come about with just these 2 countries. Add Turkey, Israel and India, you are talking NO competition, the EU is dust before it even gets started.

The EU is irrelevant, what the Euroweenies think is of no concern, they can b*&^% and whine all they want, we will do what has to be done.

[CommanderJohnson]

First, Jaguar's article is 100% true. I especially liked and agree with the part about the Europeans forgetting that even if they manage to integrate some war-mongering country (Germany in the article), it's because the US blew that country to hell first. Without the US, Miloshovic would still be in power in Bosnia too...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

I disagree with the negative assumption. It is common sense that the Iraqi people will act for their best interests and rise up against Saddam. The economic sanctions are preventing this, among other things.

---

Ok, for some reason you seem to ignore history, and I think that's the second time i've said it on various topics. What's your excuse for BEFORE the sanctions? Why didn't the Iraqi people, who were OPPRESSED by DICTATORSHIP rise up?

It's the same flawed ideas as the people who were against bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 "We shouldn't bomb and invade them, then they'll stop. Bombing and invading is what they want" Well gee, if you look at HISTORY, you'll realize that sometimes it takes a little bit of violence to get things done. World War II, the softline European countries didn't do anything about Germany, and they paid for it in lives.

Even if Iraq doesn't HAVE WMDs, there is a huge threat if he actually manages to get them, and he *IS* trying to get them. Sure, maybe the news reports saying he has enough WMDs to wipe out the Middle East is a little bit skewed, but there's at least a LITTLE bit of truth in the biased news reports, and that little bit has to at LEAST be that he's TRYING TO GET THEM, and that's threat enough to wipe him out. Why does he need em if he isn't going to use em? And dont you dare say "to protect against a US invasion" because if Saddam would become a normal member of the international community, we wouldn't be threatening to invade him to begin with!

Also, why does everyone seem to forget that Saddam is one man, and he was aggressive once when he knew he'd probably get beaten, he's still in power, and there's no reason why he isn't going to be agressive again? That sorta proves what he's going to use the WMDs for if he gets em! There's a clear threat if he's even TRYING to get them, because it's obvious that he is an aggressive/militant leader and there's no reason why him getting beaten ONCE is going to change his mind.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

The EU is irrelevant, what the Euroweenies think is of no concern, they can b*&^% and whine all they want, we will do what has to be done.

---

That article is what's irrelevant. The anti-war movement opposes US militarism (which is essentially what you glorified in your post) on a different basis, which is why it also has support in the USA and in the so-called "future allies".

quote:

---

Ok, for some reason you seem to ignore history, and I think that's the second time i've said it on various topics. What's your excuse for BEFORE the sanctions? Why didn't the Iraqi people, who were OPPRESSED by DICTATORSHIP rise up?

---

Because they preferred Saddam to Khomeini.

quote:

---

It's the same flawed ideas as the people who were against bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 "We shouldn't bomb and invade them, then they'll stop. Bombing and invading is what they want" Well gee, if you look at HISTORY, you'll realize that sometimes it takes a little bit of violence to get things done. World War II, the softline European countries didn't do anything about Germany, and they paid for it in lives.

---

Look at Afghanistan now. Two thirds of the territory is controlled by warlords (the former Northern Alliance) who rob civilians at will. They're even worse than the Taliban were. History warned of this too (these warlords did the same things before the Taliban took power and drove them out). In all cases, the interests of the Afghan people have been ignored. Now, once again, they have to worry about the troops - who are supposed to defend the people - looting the people's homes. You can thank the US government for that.

quote:

---

Even if Iraq doesn't HAVE WMDs, there is a huge threat if he actually manages to get them, and he *IS* trying to get them. Sure, maybe the news reports saying he has enough WMDs to wipe out the Middle East is a little bit skewed, but there's at least a LITTLE bit of truth in the biased news reports, and that little bit has to at LEAST be that he's TRYING TO GET THEM, and that's threat enough to wipe him out. Why does he need em if he isn't going to use em?

---

You should ask President Bush that question. The USA has more WMD than any other country. Does HE intend to use them?

quote:

---

And dont you dare say "to protect against a US invasion" because if Saddam would become a normal member of the international community, we wouldn't be threatening to invade him to begin with!

---

Define a 'normal' member.

quote:

---

Also, why does everyone seem to forget that Saddam is one man, and he was aggressive once when he knew he'd probably get beaten, he's still in power, and there's no reason why he isn't going to be agressive again? That sorta proves what he's going to use the WMDs for if he gets em! There's a clear threat if he's even TRYING to get them, because it's obvious that he is an aggressive/militant leader and there's no reason why him getting beaten ONCE is going to change his mind.

---

Bush has demonstrated more aggressive militancy than Saddam ever has. Saddam only wanted Kuwait, Bush wants the entire region, and recent history has clearly demonstrated that the US government has no regard for the civilians of the region. Millions have already died as a result of this.

[ 07-17-2002, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

First, debating is healthy, even when it merely causes confusion, because that confusion prompts an examination or re-examination of ideas. After all, if one's ideas were so solid, then why did one walk away confused instead of more certain? It is in our attempts to answer such questions that we can learn new stuff.

---

I think discussion is better than debate. Also, who has access to the debate? Further, institutions that exist solely to move an agenda forward (funded usually by personnel that wield power over that current system) then work hand in hand with the cornered market of media put out the that info to disrupt any real attempt at discussion or debate. That's a rough outline of how I see it. Maybe I'm wrong. But it doesnÔÇÖt seem like there is any real debate on things. Like this war. It isnÔÇÖt should we, but how do we get it done etc. I

quote:

---

Secondly, waiting for a new leader to fix things is not healthy, even if it's a good one with a bullet-proof vest, because that elevation of leadership prompts passivity among the people. Passivity in politics leads to a lack of substantial debate, hence it generates a complacent certainty about ideas that are never questioned. If we never question any ideas, then we can't learn any new stuff.

---

Yes and no. Leadership is something that people will always look for. With current systems "leadership" seems to be a term applied to those that manage the status quo.

I feel that any serious attempt to change things will have to done with the support of people and some leaders will be needed to give those feelings a voice others can hear. Will it lead to passiveness....I don't know...

[Guest]

quote:

---

That article is what's irrelevant. The anti-war movement opposes US militarism (which is essentially what you glorified in your post) on a different basis, which is why it also has support in the USA and in the so-called "future allies".

---

The anti-war movement in the US is a SMALL minority, they are also a bunch of throwbacks from the 60's as well as socialists, anarchists, anti-globalists etc.

They make a lot of noise, make less sense, and have a skewed worldview like yours. They are irrelevant, and do not have the structure nor the power to create the change that they seem to want.

The US will do what it needs to do, whatever the peaceniks, antiwar minority want. They may have a majority in socialist Europe, but not here, and HERE in the US is what counts. We will do what has to be done, with or without the Eurowheenies backing.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, for some reason you seem to ignore history, and I think that's the second time i've said it on various topics. What's your excuse for BEFORE the sanctions? Why didn't the Iraqi people, who were OPPRESSED by DICTATORSHIP rise up?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they preferred Saddam to Khomeini.

---

I don't really know who Khomeini is, but how is there not another people just like Khomeini now that they prefer Saddam to? Maybe it's just a better idea for us to kick Saddam out set up a democractic government for them and have the UN watch it. Democracy is always going to beat a dictatorship since the voice of the people is heard. And the UN, as flawed as they may be, watch for problems when they are involved.

quote:

---

Look at Afghanistan now. Two thirds of the territory is controlled by warlords (the former Northern Alliance) who rob civilians at will. They're even worse than the Taliban were. History warned of this too (these warlords did the same things before the Taliban took power and drove them out). In all cases, the interests of the Afghan people have been ignored. Now, once again, they have to worry about the troops - who are supposed to defend the people - looting the people's homes. You can thank the US government for that.

---

For some reason you seem to think that even *IF* your post is true, that it's somehow different from before the US invasion. At least there are more human rights under the current democratic government, and rights for women, as opposed to under the Taliban, which did at LEAST what is going on now.

Also, I fail to see how the new DEMOCRACY is making it so the peoples voices arent heard? Sure, it's not as great as the US democracy, but it's a whole lot better than the Taliban. I also fail to see where there's rampant problems with the new leadership destroying the population. If it's been reported, i'm betting it's been stopped by now.

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if Iraq doesn't HAVE WMDs, there is a huge threat if he actually manages to get them, and he *IS* trying to get them. Sure, maybe the news reports saying he has enough WMDs to wipe out the Middle East is a little bit skewed, but there's at least a LITTLE bit of truth in the biased news reports, and that little bit has to at LEAST be that he's TRYING TO GET THEM, and that's threat enough to wipe him out. Why does he need em if he isn't going to use em?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should ask President Bush that question. The USA has more WMD than any other country. Does HE intend to use them?

---

Russia actually has more WMD than any other country. They just can't find all of theirs. The reason why the US has so many is because:

1. It's hard to store and get rid of em all safely.

2. Other countries still pose a threat with them.

3. Other ENTITIES still pose a threat with them.

4. Also, if you read about the Nuclear Posture Review, it's highly likeyl he will use TNW (Tactical Nuclear Weapons), if a country on the "axis of evil" gets WMDs, notably Iraq.

That's yet another reason why we should invade Iraq. If we don't, and Iraq gets WMDs, a lot more civilians are going to die from Nuclear attacks (even though they are supposed to be precise and go to underground bunkers), than if we bomb him to hell. And no, i'm sorry, but we WILL use WMDs on Iraq if Saddam gets them, since the US population, unlike you, does not like DICTATORS who HATE THE UNITED STATES having WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. It's just one of those things that you try to prevent, and then remove.

Besides, the US using them is irrelevent to the issue of Iraq. Iraq has no RIGHT to WMDs, and in fact I believe they are part of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), which states the only nuclear nations, and states that all non-nuclear nations will not get or attempt to get nuclear weapons. I don't know how many ways it can be repeated, but Iraq having WMDs is a major threat to the entire threat to the Middle East. The United States having them just makes sure no one else is going to be stupid enough to use them.

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And dont you dare say "to protect against a US invasion" because if Saddam would become a normal member of the international community, we wouldn't be threatening to invade him to begin with!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Define a 'normal' member.

---

Follow international treaties? Follow agreements established after losing a war (reminds me of Germany not following em after WW1)? That'd be good for starters, and after awhile maybe stop oppressing his people and threatning to wipe out the Kurds in Northern Iraq?

quote:

---

Bush has demonstrated more aggressive militancy than Saddam ever has. Saddam only wanted Kuwait, Bush wants the entire region, and recent history has clearly demonstrated that the US government has no regard for the civilians of the region. Millions have already died as a result of this.

---

Ok, lets think here for a second. Who invaded Kuwait? Saddam. Who didn't retreat when we told him we'd bomb him back to the stone age? Saddam. Who got bombed back to the stone age and lost the war? Saddam. Who got slapped by the *UN* *AND* the US with economic sanctions *for* invading to begin with? Saddam. Who is REFUSING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE UN in order to get the SACTIONS removed? Saddam. What is killing the "millions of people"? The sanctions. The CAUSE of the sanctions and them not being removed is Saddam. The EFFECT of the sanctions is people dying. Under your "dream world", he either would have:

A. Taken over Kuwait, no international intervention massacred millions of innocent people.

OR

B. Would have been invaded, beaten, then we just leave him alone to get better armed forces. (including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons!!!)

The people weren't rising up prior to the invasion of kuwait or during it, so why are they going to rise up now? Your logic makes no sense, and neither does your explanation of the US being militant and wanting to take over the region. We want the oil, sure, but we DONT want colonies, and we arent KILLING PEOPLE to get it.

I fail to see how Bush has more "aggressive militancy" than Saddam. WE invade when threatened. He invades for the hell of it. Just because we're more powerful than everyone else economically and control the world, it's not militancy.

If we dont get what we want, we don't invade the country unless there's justification for it to begin with. Afghanistan had TERRORIST CAMPS *AND* was an oppressive regime. Iraq is breaking international treaties, trying to get WMDs, is a threat to the Middle East AND the US. They should be invaded. The United States is NEVER going to invade any democracy in the Middle East unless they are actually attacking our forces. Saddam has no problem with it.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

The anti-war movement in the US is a SMALL minority, they are also a bunch of throwbacks from the 60's as well as socialists, anarchists, anti-globalists etc.

---

They were a small minority in the early years of Vietnam too. Then they became so large, and their opposition so disruptive to the system, that members of the elite in society started opposing the war too.

quote:

---

I don't really know who Khomeini is, but how is there not another people just like Khomeini now that they prefer Saddam to?

---

Ayatollah Rumollah Khomeini was the leader of Iran (1979-89).

quote:

---

For some reason you seem to think that even *IF* your post is true, that it's somehow different from before the US invasion. At least there are more human rights under the current democratic government, and rights for women, as opposed to under the Taliban, which did at LEAST what is going on now.

---

Here is another article worth reading:

quote:

---

Warlords bring new terrors

The Observer (U.K.)

Sunday, December 2, 2001

by Paul Harris in Chaman

It is a hidden war that the world has ignored. But the chaos, rape, murder and pillaging that have swept southern Afghanistan are writ large on the faces of the fortunate few who escape.

Abdul Abdullah was lucky. As an ethnic Pashtun living in a village near Herat, he fled the approach of the Tajik and Hazara forces which captured the city. He headed for the barbed-wire border with Pakistan. His cousin, Aziz Khan, was not so lucky. He and his wife Fatma went west toward Iran but did not make it. They and 20 other Pashtun families were stopped at a checkpoint, one of hundreds appearing across southern Afghanistan. The men, including Khan, were herded up into the mountains and shot. The young women were taken away.

Abdullah will not say what he thinks happened to Fatma. But the truth seems obvious. 'I know they let most of the women go, but they kept the young and pretty ones like Fatma,' he said.

The landscape Abdullah crossed on his trek south is a land of warring anarchy. In many areas Taliban forces are still in control, but in others local Pashtun warlords rule by rape, robbery and murder. Armed gangs rob and kill lorry drivers who are the economic lifeblood of the region. In the skies above US bombers seek targets to destroy.

Noor Mohamed saw the effects of one of those missions. As a wheat trader plying between the Pakistani border town of Chaman and the Afghan city of Ghazni last week, he witnessed a terrible sight. Lying in a burnt-out, twisted mess just north of Kandahar were the smoking remains of a 15-lorry fuel convoy.

The charred remains of the drivers and dozens of unfortunate souls who had bargained a lift from them was a sight Mohamed will not forget. 'I saw all the dead burnt people,' he said. 'How can you be a man if you don't feel something when you see that?'

The south is the Pashtun heartland and the core of Taliban rule. The Northern Alliance, dominated by ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks, cannot march here. Instead, the Alliance and its Western backers are trying to persuade Pashtun tribal leaders and former mujahideen to revolt and overthrow a Taliban regime weakened by US bombing and the presence of 1,000 US Marines on a desert airstrip in the region.

But the policy has created a vacuum of power. Into the void have flooded warlords, based over the border in the Pakistani city of Quetta, who ruled before the Taliban came.

In the villages around Kandahar there is a name that provokes horror and fear. It is not Mullah Omar, nor is it Osama bin Laden. It is Gul Agha, the former mujahideen governor of Kandahar, whose tribal militia is backed and advised by the US.

Ghlume Walli fled from Agha's men near his hometown of Khalat to a makeshift tent at the border. 'Gula Agha's men would have robbed me even of these water bottles,' he said, holding up two dirty plastic cartons filled with brown water.

His friend Mohamed Sami agreed. He had been herding his cattle near Khalat when Agha's militia stopped him at gunpoint and slaughtered his herd.

He draws his finger across his throat. 'They are looters. Everyone is afraid. They killed every last one of the cattle,' he said.

Agha and several thousand fighters crossed into Afghanistan a day after Kabul fell. Police sources in Pakistan believe he is heavily involved in the lucrative opium trade. His followers are drawn mainly from the poor and destitute of the refugee camps. When he governed in Kandahar the city was ruled by warlords who stripped it of everything of value. Rape and robbery were commonplace.

Pakistani intelligence officials say Agha and another Western-backed tribal leader, Hamid Kharzai, have struck a deal to let Agha reclaim his old governorship when the Taliban finally falls.

It is the prospect of such men returning that has many in the refugee camps longing for the Taliban to rule as long as possible. They fled along routes controlled by the Taliban. Many say they owe the religious militia their lives.

For the Pashtuns of the south, the Taliban did not mean oppression and taking away women's rights. They had never known anything different. However, the Taliban did bring freedom from thugs and the rule of the gun.

'In the time of the Taliban I could walk down the street with 30,000 rupees and no one would touch me. But the men of Gul Agha will kill you even if you have nothing,' said Walli.

Such feelings have seen the Taliban win back some ground. Khalat fell for three days to local tribal forces. The bazaar was looted while residents cowered in their houses. Then the Taliban returned and the residents cheered.

Takhteh Pol, a vital town on the road from Kandahar to Pakistan, was also recaptured by the Taliban last week, according to reliable Afghan and Pakistani sources. The town had endured several days of rule by Agha's men, when one of his commanders boasted of executing 160 Taliban prisoners.

'They were made to stand in a long line and five or six of our fighters used light machine guns to kill them,' the commander told a French news agency, adding that US special forces attached to Agha had tried and failed to stop the shootings. The US has denied the massacre happened, but after the slaughter of hundreds of Taliban in Mazar-e-Sharif, the Takhteh Pol killings sounded all too plausible.

The collapse of Taliban rule over much of Afghanistan has laid bare the country's ethnic bones, exposing old hatreds. Hundreds of refugees in the crowded camps near Chaman are from Mazar-e-Sharif. They are all Pashtuns, who have fled rather than live under the rule of the Uzbek soldiers of Northern Alliance General Rashid Dostum.

They tell of ethnic cleansing of Pashtuns in the north and say they had no choice but to flee south to the Pashtun - and Taliban - heartland.

Haji Khira Ghol left behind his vineyard and market stall when he fled a day before Mazar-e-Sharif fell. 'The mercy of an Uzbek is worse than the greatest cruelty of the Pashtuns,' he shouted angrily.

He said 5,000 Pashtuns from his region had fled their homes. Relatives arriving after him near Chaman told him how his abandoned house had been destroyed by Dostum's men and his stall looted of all its stock.

'I can never go back. Not with the Uzbeks there. There is no place for the Pashtun in the north,' he said.

Other stories recounted by Pashtun refugees from Mazar-e-Sharif are similar. Mohamed Aslan fled his farm 10 days ago. He is terrified of the Northern Alliance and their men. He could not stay in the city of his birth. 'They know only war. If they want to they can just kill you and go unpunished,' he said.

Just over 60 miles away from the refugee camps at Chaman, the US flag flies over the Marines' captured airstrip. But the attention of those forces is firmly focused on hunting bin Laden. The ravages going on around them are ignored. Among the refugees fleeing the anarchy, the US has few friends. 'If the Americans had brought peace, that would have been a good thing. But instead they have just brought us war and looting and the men of Gul Agha,' said Aslan. Above him in the bright blue sky the jet trail of a B-52 headed north. Its target was Kandahar. This hidden war goes on.

---

Gul Agha is now the governor of Kandahar and one of the five members of the National Defense Committee. General Rashid Dostum is also on that committee and is one of the four vice presidents of the transitional government. Hamid Kharzai, who arranged for the return of Gul Agha to his former governorship of Kandahar against the interests of the people there, is now the president.

quote:

---

Also, I fail to see how the new DEMOCRACY is making it so the peoples voices arent heard? Sure, it's not as great as the US democracy, but it's a whole lot better than the Taliban. I also fail to see where there's rampant problems with the new leadership destroying the population. If it's been reported, i'm betting it's been stopped by now.

---

The Afghan people had NO say whatsoever in the formation of the government or its membership. In fact, in my response above it was made quite clear that many Afghans preferred the Taliban to the warlords who now dominate the government. So much for democracy.

quote:

---

And no, i'm sorry, but we WILL use WMDs on Iraq if Saddam gets them, since the US population, unlike you, does not like DICTATORS who HATE THE UNITED STATES having WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

---

That is low, Dredd.

I am not pro-Saddam and you know it!

quote:

---

Besides, the US using them is irrelevent to the issue of Iraq. Iraq has no RIGHT to WMDs, and in fact I believe they are part of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), which states the only nuclear nations, and states that all non-nuclear nations will not get or attempt to get nuclear weapons. I don't know how many ways it can be repeated, but Iraq having WMDs is a major threat to the entire threat to the Middle East. The United States having them just makes sure no one else is going to be stupid enough to use them.

---

Iraq does not have WMD and has NEVER had nuclear weapons. and you still haven't provided any evidence that Saddam is trying to get WMD.

Even the idea that 'rogue nations' could be hiding nukes is totally ridiculous and ignorant of the ways of international diplomacy. Nukes are far more valuable as tools of intimidation than as tools of destruction. The mere fact that Saddam is not boasting to his enemies is another point against the WMD argument.

quote:

---

Follow international treaties? Follow agreements established after losing a war (reminds me of Germany not following em after WW1)? That'd be good for starters, and after awhile maybe stop oppressing his people and threatning to wipe out the Kurds in Northern Iraq?

---

In that case, the USA is not a normal member either, because it violates international treaties all the time.

By the way, the economic sanctions were imposed after the invasion of Kuwait. By 1991, they were already causing so much damage that the Iraqi government offered to negotiate a peace settlement for the complete withdrawal from Kuwait several times before the withdrawal deadline, but the US and Britain vetoed against all negotiations in the UN Security Council.

As for that reference to the Kurds, could you be more specific?

quote:

---

Ok, lets think here for a second. Who invaded Kuwait? Saddam. Who didn't retreat when we told him we'd bomb him back to the stone age? Saddam. Who got bombed back to the stone age and lost the war? Saddam. Who got slapped by the *UN* *AND* the US with economic sanctions *for* invading to begin with? Saddam.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Who is REFUSING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE UN in order to get the SACTIONS removed? Saddam.

---

No. Saddam has met the requirements.

quote:

---

What is killing the "millions of people"? The sanctions. The CAUSE of the sanctions and them not being removed is Saddam.

---

Wrong. The requirements set in the ceasefire agreement have been met. The sanctions are still there because the US and Britain are refusing to let them be lifted.

quote:

---

Under your "dream world", he either would have:

A. Taken over Kuwait, no international intervention massacred millions of innocent people.

OR

B. Would have been invaded, beaten, then we just leave him alone to get better armed forces. (including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons!!!)

---

Where do you get these crazy ideas?!

A. There is ZERO, and I mean ZERO, indication that he intended to massacre Kuwaiti citizens. You're letting your imagination run away with you.

B. I have already stated that I am for military sanctions, hence nullifying your claim.

quote:

---

The people weren't rising up prior to the invasion of kuwait or during it, so why are they going to rise up now?

---

The same reason for any popular uprising: they've had enough, and they want something better.

quote:

---

Your logic makes no sense, and neither does your explanation of the US being militant and wanting to take over the region. We want the oil, sure, but we DONT want colonies, and we arent KILLING PEOPLE to get it.

---

The US government doesn't use colonialism to take over the countries it invades; it simply arranges for the appointment of a pro-US majority in the new government's membership. It's a more efficient form of imperialism.

The idea that the US government isn't killing people to take control is false. Its militaristic policies during the so-called 'war on terror' alone have already contributed to millions of deaths, and the US government knew all along that this was going to happen.

quote:

---

I fail to see how Bush has more "aggressive militancy" than Saddam. WE invade when threatened. He invades for the hell of it.

---

The US government invades and intervenes wherever and whenever such action can benefit the American elite and can be 'rationalized' by propaganda as being in the national interest.

Saddam does not invade for the hell of it. His attacks on Iran and Kuwait were both motivated by long-standing border disputes.

quote:

---

If we dont get what we want, we don't invade the country unless there's justification for it to begin with. Afghanistan had TERRORIST CAMPS *AND* was an oppressive regime.

---

Afghanistan also had over 5 million Afghanis dependent on humanitarian aid organizations for survival. All of these organizations were against the war because they knew it would disrupt the flow of aid and risk millions of lives. They were begging the US government to not even threaten to bomb, because even the threat of it would cause disruption. The government knew the consequences and continued anyway.

On the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan

quote:

---

Iraq is breaking international treaties, trying to get WMDs, is a threat to the Middle East AND the US.

---

The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the claim that Iraq is a threat.

[Guest]

quote:

---

The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the claim that Iraq is a threat.

---

Actually, the eveidence overwhelmingly PROVES that Iraq is a threat, or soon will be. He has been trying to buy the tooling necessary to create a nuclear weapon, he has tried to buy on the black market nuclear materials necessary for a nuclear weapon, he has tried to buy missiles from China, Iran and others that are capable of carrying a payload the size of a nuclear weapon as far as Israel and other countries. His biological program is going great guns, and his chemical manufacturing capability is now up to par to where it was before the Gulf war.

Saddam had NOT abided by the UN peace agreement, or else there would be UN inspectors in Iraq inspecting for WMD weapons. Saddam is hiding his capabilities and has been hiding his capabilities. You have been listening to yourself too much.