[Bobboau]

well nice to see it didn't efect you in the slightest, it must be a nice world your living in

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Ace


Okay, I have to go on a little rant here, no offense to you Su-tehp.

A few thousand people die from airplanes being slammed into a couple of buildings and we're in a "Post 9-11 World".

What about the thousands starving in countries every day? Are we in a "Post Kenya World?" Or what about people being shot at in demonstrations with a similar death toll?

If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?

But anyway, let's all get back to our nationalism, flag waving, and how changed the world is due to "terrorists" while people just as deserving of life are wasting away... whee!

Sorry Ace, but I'm going to have to go on a litte rant here.

So you don't think 9/11 signified anything? It didn't show that world terrorism is a major threat, and that today, terrorists have the capability to, within a matter of hours, make simultaneous attacks on US (The US being the dominant world power at the time.) soil against both Civilian and Government structures, killing thousands, using the US's own planes?

While both are sadly real, you are saying that people starving to death in Kenya has the same impact on the world as 9/11 has?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Rictor
Ok, so they caught him...maybe. He wasn't a real threat, so this victory is only symbolic. Capturing Saddam really won't have any effect on either the US or the Iraqi people. If it turns out its really him....

When I first saw the news, there was a picture of the disshelved Saddam on the Yahoo front page. However, since my homepage is actuall yahoo.ca, the headline beside that was something like "Paul Martin sworn in as Prime Minister" and the Saddam picture right beside it. That was a really confusing few moments:)

It will have an effect of the Iraqi people. Some People in Iraq were convinced that he would come back. With him in custody this could make for a change in attitudes. Although even with out this recent event, I think the Iraqi people were slowly being convinced of that. But it will not make much effect over here, except maybe it give the 9 squabbling Democrats who are gropping for vision something less to complain about.

Originally posted by Ace

Okay, I have to go on a little rant here, no offense to you Su-tehp.

A few thousand people die from airplanes being slammed into a couple of buildings and we're in a "Post 9-11 World".

What about the thousands starving in countries every day? Are we in a "Post Kenya World?" Or what about people being shot at in demonstrations with a similar death toll?

If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?

But anyway, let's all get back to our nationalism, flag waving, and how changed the world is due to "terrorists" while people just as deserving of life are wasting away... whee!

It does have to do with the power of america. It gets of praise world wide as being seen as the leader of the freeworld. Not saying that out of pride but saying that as a observation. It has to do with the national interest of the US with oil and energy. Africa has nothing we are interested in. Yes we provide drug aid for aids infected individuals. The US does in fact donate some food. Some Non profits do care for them also( I am speaking in general: like starving tribes). It is not nearly enough. Now, also some of africa's problems can be blamed on colonialism also. But that is another argument. Umm, But it is true that because 3000 americans died we can do something about it. Not to get me wrong, the US Gov't has robbed individuals blind that didn't know anybetter such as the indians: they were stupid but the Gov't acted unethically. But, yes their are many acts of unjustice in the world. Tiamen square incident, the holocaust, The Iran Iraq war, the millions Stalin killed, the list goes on and on. However, as dilen said in the Babylon 5 movie "In the Beginning" that there is a single event that defines a generation I think. Or something like that. But what come of that pain and event changes the world. On 9/11/2001 there was an event that rocked the western hepmispheer. What comes of that pain and event defines the future. The US should continue to fight terrorism. The US should also start being a quite abit fervent about human rights with out a question. But the issue should not be used for political reasons like Bush did.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Knight Templar


Sorry Ace, but I'm going to have to go on a litte rant here.

So you don't think 9/11 signified anything? It didn't show that world terrorism is a major threat, and that today, terrorists have the capability to, within a matter of hours, make simultaneous attacks on US (The US being the dominant world power at the time.) soil against both Civilian and Government structures, killing thousands, using the US's own planes?

While both are sadly real, you are saying that people starving to death in Kenya has the same impact on the world as 9/11 has?

Now, I did not state that I believe that the events on September 11 were any more or less important, I simply made a rhetorical statement about if all life is to be valued then why is one event considered more important then another when both are crimes as they are taking life.

Would not the act of allowing these people to starve be as evil as the act of allowing terrorism to continue? Both take lives and effect humanity and the world as a whole.

Both then would logically be world effecting events, and so the "Post Kenya World" should be a viable statement, as the events in that nation effect the potential outcome of the global society, just as a terrorist attack does.

[redmenace]

But at what point does a countries borders stop existing and the world support one another. Are we or should be just one huge nation? Screw sovereignty? The reason I ask this is it seems that I see a general attitude of Globilism here. Are we one Giant people or individuals?

[mikhael]

why can't we be both?

I'm an individual. I'm also an American. Why can't I be an American AND be a part of the global community?

[Bobboau]

then what happens when the global community and America disagree, wich side will you be on?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Ace


Okay, I have to go on a little rant here, no offense to you Su-tehp.

A few thousand people die from airplanes being slammed into a couple of buildings and we're in a "Post 9-11 World".

What about the thousands starving in countries every day? Are we in a "Post Kenya World?" Or what about people being shot at in demonstrations with a similar death toll?

If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?

But anyway, let's all get back to our nationalism, flag waving, and how changed the world is due to "terrorists" while people just as deserving of life are wasting away... whee!

Exactly what I'm thinking, and what I have been thinking ever since 9/11. Its very arrogant to say that when 3000 Americans die its this great historic event that changes the world, but when 30,000 die every day due to hunger and desiese (sp?), they go COMPLETELY un-noticed. This implies that American lives are much much more valuable than the lives to other people, and anyone who agrees with that ought to have their teeth knocked out since its utter ****e.

But you said it better..

[Bobboau]

think of it less as 3000 Americans and more like 3000 westerners,
more over 3000 westerners at the hands of a faction we, as westurners, had not consitered a threat, on 9-11 we realised we had been at war, and the other side was playing for keeps
I doubt 9-11 effected people in Africa much so to them the world hasn't changed, but for us it has
and by us I mean western civilisation, US and Europe + Austrailia, Canada, Mexico, prety much all of South America, and parts of Asia.
also, quite obviusly, it effects the Islamic world, wich would be the middle east north Africa, and south/southeast Asia/Indoneasia.

[Rictor]

Oh, so its Western lives which are more valuable, not just American? My mistake.

I agree that it probably had little effect on the people living in Africa or South America or almost anywhere for that matter. And yet you (and by "you" I mean the American Government) still present 9/11 as a global event which will be forever remembered in history or something like that. You just experienced a SMALL fraction of what most of the world goes through every day, the death of innocents. One would think that an event such as 9/11 would humble the American people and open their eyes to just what the world goes through every day, due in no small part to America itself. Instead, its seems that America has only retreated further into empty rhetoric and blind nationalism..

[Nico]

Originally posted by Bobboau
then what happens when the global community and America disagree, wich side will you be on?

The side which is right?
d'uh.

About 9/11, I agree with Ace, that was not the first terrorist attack ever, even if admitedly it's the deadliesr, by far. Maybe there's a post 9/11 USA, but you know, the rest of the world, well, we saw that on TV, it was sad and all, but it didn't change our lives the slightest. Did it really changed yours, anyway? I doubt your days are any different.

[Bobboau]

what happens if both sides have vertualy equaly valid positions?

and yet after years of that behavor were the most powerful nation on earth, hmmm...

anyway, so, lets put it this way, do you value your mothers life more than some random person on the other side of the planet you have never met and will never meet?
I do beleve that my question is slanted enough that there is no way you can only say "yes, I do" or something similar in the middle of half apage about how that isn't relevent and how were just flustering up warmnongerism blah bleh blu.
this is becase she is a vary close part of your famely, this extends to your father siblings then grand parents uncles, but it goes beond blood relation, you also value the lives of frends, yes I do hope you hold more value in the life of your best frend that someone you have no relation to elsewere on the planet, this does not inherantly imply that they are 'more valuable' but to you they are more important, now lets push this a little further to a point were we may disagree lets say you walk down the street of your local town, you see people, the vast majoroty of wich you don't know, but you recognise them as people who share common values and ideals with you (in general, there are probly a few nutters in there like me), even though you don't intamately know any of these people, don't you feel some sort of connection to them? any sort of above average compasion, or recognition of them as being of the same groupe as you, sort of like an (extreemly) extended famly? now if it came down to it, you care more your your father or brother than probly (me assuming) all of these people combind, BUT a real question is do you care more about them (the people of your town) than some kid who lives on the other side of the planet?
now it's 3:17 in the morning so I might not be makeing much sence, but my point is we, as humans care more for people who are'more like us' than people who aren't. the defenition for 'more like us' is defined by the culture and is the bassis for both the greatest and worst aspects of human nature, both compasion and hate stem from the same instictual behavior of protecting you and your kind, your famely, your race, your religon, your nation, your what ever it is that your culture has identifyed as a unifying feature, from anyhting you perceive as a threat to it, weather it is a threat or not, if you perceive it as a threat you hate it, if you perceve it as one of you, you love it, and you prottect it from 'them'.
Americans, in general, feel that Europe, Austrailia, ect (western nations) are bretheren, we arn't exactly on the frendliest of terms at the moment, but we recognise you as being of the same ideology (one of the big thing our colective culture presents as a unifing feature) as us, we both beleve in freedom, (that the government should not controle the lives of it's people), we both beleve in democracy (that people should have a substantial and final say in what the government does), and we both beleve in the dignaty and value of human life, even though as humans we may not react in a manner consistant with that. if Germany suffered some catastrophic terrorist atack, 5,000 people killed, we would react (after a breif moment of angry I-told-you-so-ism) as if it was an atack on us, becase deep down we see you as being just like us, even if you have some querks that drive us nuts.
so, now do you see how we see the 9-11 atacks as an atack on us, you and me, everyone who visits this board is within the group of people no matter how much you hate America, we still think of you as one of us, and we still feel a desire to help defend you from a threat we perceve, that for some reason beond us you don't

[Nico]

Originally posted by Bobboau
what happens if both sides have vertualy equaly valid positions?

You pick up the one your in favour more, and that's it. The same goes for everything in life, not just politics

anyway, so, lets put it this way, do you value your mothers life more than some random person on the other side of the planet you have never met and will never meet?

Bingo, that sentence in itself is enough to sum up the views of the rest of the world, right now.
Well, I'll take the pov of France, coz I'm most familiar with it, obviously: we don't value the americans life more than, say, the ones of Congo.
-for once, you're farther away, "distant", if you know what I mean
-to us, the USA people don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's in their interest
-we consider the USA meddlers
-the recent actions and comments of your government toward us about choices that were legitimate and legal, severly pissed off our people, I can assure you ( "Big Brother", you know? )
-as I said, there's no direct psychological impact from the 9/11, for us. As opposed to Congo where we have soldiers dying ( or worse ). Do you feel for our soldiers ( who are there as peace keepers because they've been asked to )? Heck, I'm sure don't don't even hear about them on your news bulletins
No, you see, our world wasn't shattered by the WTC strike, we're more worried about the 10k or so french nationals that are (well, were, it's a bit calmed down, they don't run around beheading people anymore ) in danger of death right now. To each his own pain.

Edit: and I don't hate the USA. In Fance, we have an old saying, dunno if it exists in english, but it could be translated with "who likes well punishes well". You don't seem to understand that we don't take such positions not because we don't like you, but because we think it's the right thing to do, on a moral and geopolitical point of view.

[Sandwich]

Before I begin to rebutt ( ), I'd like to say up front that my arguments and remarks are not aimed at certain people, but at their arguments and remarks. I'll mostly be responding to Mik and Su's posts here, both of whom I hold in high regard. So again, I'm arguing against your arguments, not against you. Don't get offended or anything.

Here goes:

Originally posted by mikhael
I find it interesting that you trot out the nuclear threat, when nothing of the kind has yet been found. Show me the nuclear weapons and we can start to consider Saddam an actual nuclear threat. Hell, show me the chemical and biological weapons.

Chemical weapons? What do you think he murdered thousands of his own people with back in '88 with? American hot dog mustard??

Originally posted by mikhael
As for the rest, you're saying that any country can invade Israel.

Israel has all but come out and stated they have nuclear weapons.

Israel has stated openly that they (we) have nukes. It was a year or two ago, during the current spate of terrorist attacks, and I forget how it came up exactly. But Israel officially has nuclear weapons now. So what?

Originally posted by mikhael
They show a willingness to assassinate people--and are proud of it.

Israel assassinates known terrorists and those who directly support terrorism, period. Yes, civilian casualties sometimes occur as well, but that is part and parcel of a war, especially when the enemy hides among their own civilians. So anyway, yeah - do you have a problem with assassinating terrorists?

Originally posted by mikhael
A willingness to deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians combined with nuclear weapons sounds more than a bit dangerous to me.

Excuse me? "...deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians"?? Israel has NEVER targeted civilians. And if you were to look into the status quo of the Middle-Eastern political balance, you'd very quickly see that our nukes are the only serious deterrent we have against being wiped off the map by our neighbors.

Also, though I have no way to confirm this, I recall hearing somewhere that Israel's nuclear weapons were not strategic, but tactical. In the kiloton, not megaton, range - to be used against army battalions and not cities, that kind of thing.

Originally posted by mikhael
At what point do you consider them a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?

When we stop being a democratic (republic, sorry) nation. When we start handing Syria ultimatums to the effect of "stop supporting terrorism within 7 days, or we nuke Damascus." When we start carpet-bombing areas of cities and villages that are occupied by "hostiles" simply because to go in there by foot for precision work would be too dangerous to our own soldiers (*ahem*).

I know that media polls have shown that the majority of the public views Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. Well, from our point of view, they're completely right. Although Israel has not started a single war in the 55 years she's been in existence, 3 wars have been started against her, and many other localized battles have been fought. So imagine what it would do to (the god of) World Peace if we actually went on the warpath.

Originally posted by mikhael
By invading Iraq on a flimsy pretext that the rest of the civilized world saw through from the first, the US has shown a willingness to trample the rights of other nations, international law, and the will of the international community. It has displayed a willingness to bomb indiscriminately (witness US Army multiple warhead delivery systems and their 40-60% dud rate). To date, the US is still the only country in the entire world to have actually deployed a nuclear device--and that at a civilian target, not a military one. At what point do you consider the US a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?

I just don't see how you can use that line of rhetoric so glibly. Its so easy to apply to any country, any situation. Its so flexible and easy. It doesn't need actual accountability. It only needs suspicion and rumor.

I'm not going to start defending the US here, simply because of the overwhelming irony of who is taking which position in the argument. But I will say that the public should realize that they never have the whole picture that the national leaders have.

Originally posted by Su-tehp
I have to agree with mikhael here. I understand that this is a post 9/11 world and that it is necessary to strike at terrorists before they can carry out their plots of killing as many innocent civilians as they can. After all, they make no distinction between American civilians and american military targets. However, pre-emption as an overall strategy is very dangerous just for the reasons that mikhael stated: it doesn't need accountability. You don't have to present proof of an imminent threat to start a war. All you have to do is say "Hey, we THINK these people are getting ready to attack us, so let's attack them first."

How the hell does that work? If you're in a bar and you think somebody is about to throw a punch at you so you throw the first punch instead, all that does is get you prosecuted for assault. If you throw the first punch, you're gulity of assault (and battery if you actually hit the other guy).

I agree - pre-emption is very dangerous when done without accountability. But there's such a thing as being too cautious; again, at what point do you consider Saddam-ruled Iraq a serious and credible threat? Do you wait until they've launched the ICBM's at you, or does rolling the launchers into launch position count as threat enough?

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Of course, we are dealing with terrorists, who have no sense of propriety or legality, so I can see Sandwichs side of the argument as well. But is it morally right to start wars just on assumptions and unproven intelligence? With the standard the Bush administration uses, how can we know that their intelligenc is of any real credibility? Before and during the beginning of the war, Bush kept saying there were nuclear (or "nucular," to use his pronunciation ) weapons ready to be deployed against the US.

I refer you once again to the link above. The public never knows the whole truth. Never. That's why the public elects people, places them in charge, and relies on them to weigh all the facts - especially the ones hidden from the public's eyes for various reasons.

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Well, guess what? A nuclear weapons program is EXTREMELY hard to hide because of all the infrastructure needed to create such a weapon (storage units, cooling units, finding weapons grade nuclear material and so on). We haven't even found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons, which are significantly easier to produce than nuclear weapons.

Hard to hide? How many decades has Israel's possession of nuclear weaponry been an unknown-but-assumed? You'd be amazed at how easy it is to hide, well... pretty much anything except for a moon launch.

And as for evidence of chemical or biological weapons, have you tried looking in the mass graves? (@ Saddam)

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Bush kept saying over and over again that the threat was "imminent." It wasn't.

Again, you can't know that for sure. You trust that your leader truly has his nation's best interests in mind. Or look at it this way: what's the 2 most important things to a US president? One thing would be to get re-elected - everyone likes power. But the other thing, which any sane man would put above mere re-election, is the safety and security of the people who put their trust in him and elected him to that position of power. So what does he do when confronted with a situation where he has access to non-public information that proves that a credible threat exists to his people, and yet to act based on that information will look agressive/stupid/war-mongering in the eyes of those who are not privy to said information? He acts on the information, putting the safety of his people above his chances of re-election.

Originally posted by Su-tehp
And then there's the fact that the Bushies shut our traditional allies out of contracts to help rebuild Iraq. France, Germany and Russia were all shut out of the bidding for these contracts for, the Bush administration claimed, "reasons of security." Excuse me? How is a contract to rebuild Iraq's electricity grid awarded to a German company (rather than to, say, Halliburton) a threat to American security? Dudes, this is plain for everyone to see: Bush shut our traditional allies out of the bidding because they didn't support the war in Iraq, plain and simple. Net result to the American taxpayer: we wind up footing the bill for rebuilding Iraq, rather than spreading the cost among the international community. Enjoy those tax cuts, peeps! They won't last long! This sort of spiteful behavior will just keep pissing off our friends and allies simply because it's so blatant. Who wants to help and ally with a nation that behaves like a spoiled brat?

I haven't kept up with these developments at all, so I can't really say. But at first glance, the reasons for alienating France and Russia (dunno about Germany) would seem to be obvious to me: France's government was against the war against Saddam's regime, and even actively worked against American forces in Iraq by providing intelligence to Iraq. Whether that is true or not is not the question - American officials hold it to be true, and acted on it.

As for Russia... pfft. Where do you think Iraq got her RPG's, her AK-47's, etc? But that's probably a lame reason, since the Russia of today is a different country. So I don't honestly know.

Originally posted by Su-tehp
With his credibility stretched so far past the snapping point, how can we trust Bush the next time he says we have to start a new war to protect ourselves? How can we trust him when he says anything?

I wouldn't feel so bad about preemption if I actually trusted the guy doing the preempting. Needless to say, for all of the above reasons (and more), I don't trust Bush. Go figure.

Who would you trust?

Originally posted by Nico
I won't comment on the Iraki nuke thinguy, but about japan, that's bullcrap: they were already on the verge of giving up, the war was pretty much won already.

That's not what I learned in history (IIRC; I hated history in school ). Source?

Originally posted by mikhael
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Ladin hated each other. Hussein hates bin-Ladin's theocratic leanings, and Osama hates Hussein's secular government.

This proves what exactly? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? I think you all agree that Bin-Laden can be called America's enemy, so therefore if Saddam is his enemy, then Saddam is America's friend?? I don't think it works that way; this point proves nothing.

Originally posted by mikhael
...piss on the organization we founded (the UN)...

Which, by the way, was a excellent example to the world of what a political "delaying action" is. More sanctions, more inspections, more time... *sigh*

Originally posted by mikhael
Yeah, he needed to be removed, but not in this way. Not in the worst, most screwed up way we could imagine.

So in what way would you suggest he be removed? Assassination? Democratically voted out??

Originally posted by Ace
If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?

Because of the motives behind it. Intent to kill and all that - it means a lot in legal systems; ask Su.

Originally posted by Ace
Would not the act of allowing these people to starve be as evil as the act of allowing terrorism to continue? Both take lives and effect humanity and the world as a whole.

Good point, but I think there's a misconception in there. You're equating "allowing people to starve" with "allowing terrorism to continue". But consider that terrorism itself is an act(ion). Thus to be more accurate, the comparison would have to be "causing people to starve" (not to be confused with not acting on the ability to prevent said starvation) vs. "murdering people".

It's a fine line, and you may even see it as semantics, but it's more. It's the intent that is guiding your actions.






*phew*

[J3Vr6]

Well I stopped reading the last page cuz all you all are doing is going back and forth and no ones opinion is going to change.  Saddam is a bad boy and I'm glad we got him.  I accept us going into Iraq.  I accept there's civilian casualties, it's part of any conflict.  I honestly believe that if we hadn't stepped in at Iraq, whatever the reasons, that the bastard was going to be there for a long time... And in that time he'd continue killing and oppressing his own people, funding terrorist factions (if you don't believe that, you're an idiot), and attempting to gain WMD (if he doesn't have them already) to use on his neighbors and his favorite western country.  Having this man continue in power was just a period stain in a used up tampon.

Regarding us refusing France, Germany, and Russia take part in getting the infrastructure in Iraq back:  They can suck our big fat one.  It's like Sandwich said.  They did not accept nor condone the attack in Iraq, nor did they provide any military assistance.  So then suddenly Iraq is liberated and they want to help out? (does jerking off motion) please...  Why should we give them the contracts and the potential big-bucks when all they did was whine from the sidelines.  We've lost over a hundred troops there and you think we're not going to keep the business to ourselves?

Although, I did see the news last night that the US has met with France, Germany, and Russia so they can pay off Iraq's existing debt.  Now that I can accept, cuz they won't be getting anything in return yet still be helping the Iraqi people.

Anyway, I heard some interesting news yesterday.  A news reporter was recanting a conference between officials that was on earlier that day.  The press was there and before the conference began one official turned to another and asked him basically:

"Isn't it true that we've already caught Bin Laden and we're going to bring him out before the election?"

And that other official didn't respond.  A reporter had overheard this.  This was reported by FOX news, so take it as you want.  I can't find it on their website, but if u can I'll give you a cookie.

[Bobboau]

the dems seem to be floating a bunch of conspeicy theorys lately, damn are they getting desperate, soon maybe they'll let Leberman be taken seriusly

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

Chemical weapons? What do you think he murdered thousands of his own people with back in '88 with? American hot dog mustard??

This isn't 1988. This is 2003. In that 15yr gap many things have happened. If Hussein had chemical weapons still, where are they? Why weren't they deployed against the invading US troops? If you can show me one single tank of VX, one nuclear warhead, one tank of biological agent, your argument is valid. Unfortunately, you can't because NO ONE has found them, and we've been looking pretty hard.
Funny though, that you say "american hot dog mustard". We knew about the chemical and biological weapons in 1988. We didn't have to do inspections to know about them back then. All we needed to do was CHECK THE DAMN RECIEPTS. It was Americans (the Reagan/Bush administration) that sold him all those weapons and trained his people to use them.

Israel has stated openly that they (we) have nukes. It was a year or two ago, during the current spate of terrorist attacks, and I forget how it came up exactly. But Israel officially has nuclear weapons now. So what?

Israel assassinates known terrorists and those who directly support terrorism, period. Yes, civilian casualties sometimes occur as well, but that is part and parcel of a war, especially when the enemy hides among their own civilians. So anyway, yeah - do you have a problem with assassinating terrorists?

Excuse me? "...deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians"?? Israel has NEVER targeted civilians. And if you were to look into the status quo of the Middle-Eastern political balance, you'd very quickly see that our nukes are the only serious deterrent we have against being wiped off the map by our neighbors.

Allow me to paraphrase something I read the other day: they're freedom fighters when we like them, terrorists when we don't and guerillas when we're not sure.
We have to take your government's word that they are targetting the right people, that those people are guilty, and that the evidence them is so overwhelming that apprehension and trial are unnecessary. Somehow, we have to trust that the Israeli government makes mistakes and that every last one of those assassinations are justified. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, especially considering the overall situation with Israel and Palestine.

When we stop being a democratic (republic, sorry) nation. When we start handing Syria ultimatums to the effect of "stop supporting terrorism within 7 days, or we nuke Damascus." When we start carpet-bombing areas of cities and villages that are occupied by "hostiles" simply because to go in there by foot for precision work would be too dangerous to our own soldiers (*ahem*).

You mean opressing ethnically separate civilians, shooting at them with gunships, flattening buildings with bulldozers and flying jets into Syria ISN'T enough to roll tanks? Unproven suspicion of the existence of nuclear weapons is enough, but the actual oppression of a populace and actual assassinations AREN'T? Talk about a double standard.

I agree - pre-emption is very dangerous when done without accountability. But there's such a thing as being too cautious; again, at what point do you consider Saddam-ruled Iraq a serious and credible threat? Do you wait until they've launched the ICBM's at you, or does rolling the launchers into launch position count as threat enough?

I honestly don't know what is enough. The Soviet Union parked nukes on our doorsteps in Cuba and we didn't go to war. I'd consider that a far more credible threat than the foolishness with Hussein. Again, I challenge you to provide a shred of credible proof that Hussein had NBC weapons in 2003. Without even a shred of credible proof, you can't consider it a credible threat. Its a supposition, a suspicion. If all you've got is supposition and suspicion you don't commit lives to war. You're not being too cautious, you're being cautious enough.

Hard to hide? How many decades has Israel's possession of nuclear weaponry been an unknown-but-assumed? You'd be amazed at how easy it is to hide, well... pretty much anything except for a moon launch.

Sandwich is right. South African hid a nuclear program for decades. It took them admitting it voluntarily for the rest of the world to find out.

As for Russia... pfft. Where do you think Iraq got her RPG's, her AK-47's, etc? But that's probably a lame reason, since the Russia of today is a different country. So I don't honestly know.

Where do you think Iraq got its bioligcal and chemical weapons programs and initial stockpiles? From the US. Funny, I don't see Bush getting angry at America for creating this monster.

This proves what exactly? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? I think you all agree that Bin-Laden can be called America's enemy, so therefore if Saddam is his enemy, then Saddam is America's friend?? I don't think it works that way; this point proves nothing.

No, it shows that the two of them didn't work together. Just because they have common enemies--the US and Israel, for example--does not mean they are in bed together. There isn't a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, and never was. That was a bunch of lies put together by the Bush administration to convince the American people to go to war. At no point do I imply, or state, that their mutual enmity makes either of them "our friend".

Which, by the way, was a excellent example to the world of what a political "delaying action" is. More sanctions, more inspections, more time... *sigh*

Actually, what you call a "delaying action", I call "following international law", or "multinational cooperation", or "allowing the UN to perform its mandate". More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition. What coalition? well lets move on...

So in what way would you suggest he be removed? Assassination? Democratically voted out??

No. I suggest that pissing on the UN and alienating people like the French (historically our most loyal of allies, without whom there wouldn't even be a United States, lest we forget) is the wrong way to proceed. The best thing the US could have done was to aggressively push inspections, aggressively push sanctions and aggressively push blockade busting. If all of these things proved fruitless, then war, with the support of the UN, would have been the right course. Given that we haven't yet seen any proof of CURRENT NBC weapons anywhere in Iraq, I'd say that the sactions and blockading and inspections weren't fruitless.

One thing you brought up Sandwich, is that there are things the government knows that the public does not. I was in the military and worked with the intelligence community. I understand how true this is. I also know that intelligence is shared among friendly governments. If would couldn't convince our staunchest allies, perhaps our intelligence wasn't as good as we thought.

[Bobboau]

we were looking prety hard for Sadam too, and we only now found him

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by mikhael

Where do you think Iraq got its bioligcal and chemical weapons programs and initial stockpiles? From the US. Funny, I don't see Bush getting angry at America for creating this monster.
, what you call a "delaying action", I call "following international law", or "multinational cooperation", or "allowing the UN to perform its mandate". More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition. What coalition? well lets move on...

Not to mention it was Rumsfeld who was in charge of selling weaponry to Saddam to assist his nwar against Iran.  So were the Brits, admittedly - I remember a minor story about the marines clearing out a small harbour (Um Qasar I think), where there were drums of Royal Navy labelled mines lying about.

And to also support Miks' argument, the Arab world could make pretty much exactly the same argument for invading Israel as the US did for Iraq.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Sandwich
That's not what I learned in history (IIRC; I hated history in school ). Source?

Source? geez, man. Take any darn history book ( but preferably not one written by a US historian, you probably heard of "history is written by the winners", right? ). Their military was crippled, their moral was crippled, their land was cripped, the soldiers were starting to desert in mobs, hell, they were so frightened of the US soldiers that civilians commited mass suicides when they were approching. Didn't ever occur to you it was odd those B29 came so freely right over the japanese mainland ( heck, not some remote island, Japan itself ), back and forth, dropped their little surprise and returned back home w/o the slightest trouble? What did they actually teach at school, I'm curious. Now I understand better some stuff, tho. Talk about disinformation .