I agree with you craeonics. The way the policy is being stated, any nation can be a threat.

What bothers me is the new way American policy deals with the world. What if some one else does a 'pre-emptive strike'?

I don't agree with how the bush administration moved forward with this at all. I think it could have been done way better than it was. Nevertheless, it would seem that Iraq is in breech. Saddam is not a normal leader and I do believe that he would attack American soil if he could find a way that would not be detected. I have read how he treats his people and how he sees the world and he would attack once he had a way and enough material.

1)
America, Canada, England, Russia, France, and other countries have 'big guns' because they are suppossedly stable - Iraq is not a country that is stable

2)
Iraq, unlike other war torn countries, has a large amount of money to fuel its want for weapons

3)
UN Inspectors are not there to find weapons, they are there to be shown by Saddam how those weapons were destoyed or to be destoyed if they have them.

4)
Unlike other countries under UN sanctions, Iraq has 10 some odd resolutions of disarmament, human rights, and economic exclution.


5)
Terrorist will attack whether we go into Iraq or not. Worring about more attacks because of this action is like putting a criminal in jail and the criminal blaims you for him being in jail.


While I believe the case is clear, Bush could have gone about it WAY differently than he did. You can not slap people around, even for a good cause, and expect people to follow you.


I want Saddam to somehow just be forced to treat his people better. 200 or so UN inspectors is not enough if Saddam is not going to give the information fast enough ( I doubt Saddam just destoyed these weapons and did not document that destruction... remember this is the same guy who shot at the inspectors many years ago.)

I always thought, how come they just could not increase the UN ispectors to 10,000, have U2 flights everyday, helicopter flights, search squads, and have UN peace troops occupy the country to feed the people, and to protect the inspectors who now are in 'find' mode and not relying on the 'help' of Saddam.

I think there is a way out of this, but Bush made it very hard to just back away now.

Wed.

*************** If you read any of this, read this part *********************

I am so sick of people who can mourn the dead in Nagasaki, and forget the untold numbers that were raped, tortured, experimented upon, and finally killed in mainland Asia by the Japanese; or the *children* the Japanese government were pressing into service and sending off to die.

Did german soldiers man the bomb factories in Germany? Heck no, it was a civilian population churning out the tools of war, just as it was here. Should we have allowed them to crank out buzz-bombs by the ton just because we couldn't guarantee that the employees were military? Have you seen images of post-WW2 urban Germany? Is there really a difference between two atomic bombs and millions of pounds of conventional ones?

OOOOH... wait, I get it, there IS a difference!!! The people the Germans were slaughtering were WHITE! Since the germans were killing people that are recognizable to us, we don't mind that we leveled as much of Germany as we could with little regard for civilian casualties. The Japanese, though, were doing their genetic experiments, forcibly impregnating whole populations, and systematically exterminating people of a *different* culture than ours. Which, I suppose, makes it all okay to those who can't remember why we dropped a couple of big bombs on them.

***************************************

Where were the champions of 'civilian casualties' when millions were tortured, executed, and hacked to death in Serbia, Rwanda, and the countless other conflicts that france and the rest turned a blind eye to when there was no money to be made. They didn't just ignore the events, they voted *no*; actively tried to prevent something being done about the slaughter. Just as they are doing now.

If the US is fighting because they want Saddam's oil, the french are letting a evil man stay in power because they *have* his oil. french oil producers have an agreement with Saddam Hussein worth 60 billion dollars over the next few years. They visit him, give him trophies, swords, awards and presents, and generally kiss his hairy butt. Iraq owes france ( and russia ) billions of dollars already. All of which will be null-and-void if the regime falls. It is more economically viable for anti-war europe to protect the most evil minority in Iraq while pretending to care about the 60% of the population that would starve without foreign aid.

Most of all, I hate every pig-headed, gas-guzzling idiot that thinks they are smart enough to make policy and yet can't recognize that prosperity is *always* paid for with someone else's suffering. If you have a starry-eyed, Disney view of how things oughtta be, it is because someone, somewhere far away, is suffering for your leisure; you're just too blinded by that leisure to see it.

Sure, this war is about self-interest, but the peace being called for is even more bitterly self-absorbed. france and the rest have a good thing going, why stop a madman when you can make a cottage industry out of him?

By the way, Japan had a bad record on the human rights thing way before the war. See what stunts they pulled in China. In the decades beforehand. Or in other words, dropping a bomb on Nagasaki in order to stop all that (as you make it sound), was rather late, no?

I think it had more to do with not wasting so many men on trying to invade them.

Anyhow, different topic.

Oh no, let's do it this way: I'll go out for lunch and in the meantime you can be your serious, disgruntled self. 'Cause obviously me being around nullifies all seriousness in here.

Or perhaps you should come lunch with me to clear your system? Nasty cough you have there.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10

Heck, even my own country only think of its best interest.

Canada was refusing to take position for a long time. They've been having a dispute with the US about Canadian lumber exports to the US, and as long as the matter was still not resolved, the Canadian governement was being vague about its position with this war. About 2 weeks ago, the US government definalty closed to door and refused to discuss any further the Canadian lumber question. The very next day, the Canadian governement officially took position, for the first time, against War in Iraq.

It's all really about money, diplomatic realtionships and economic alliances. Nobody cares about the dying children.

Starting to sound like that movie Roller Ball where the world was run by corporations. That what ya mean craeonics?

A logical conclusion would then be that democracy doesn't work

If we had any real democracy that is. As in: everyone gets a say on decisions. Would be unpractical, perhaps. Maybe not.

Right now the best you can get is indirect democracy, where you pick someone and hope enough others pick said bloke or bird and then pray that he or she sticks to what he or she said when he/she was campaining.

WOM: can't recall said movie (though I've seen it).

And your point is craeonics? I was only kidding and IP knows that.... he really does need to get some sleep!!!

Karma, I don't think anything really bad has been said.
So far, the debate seems to say that money rules, in any country.

I did not want to touch this threat as a german. Just wanted You all to remember before judging about any other country : Every country has it's dark points in history...