[amprecon]

Something that's been bothering me worse than the 9/11 attacks is the attitude of our supposed allies. It disgusts me to hear opposition from the U.N., NATO, France, Germany, Canada and all the other countries who pay lip service to us while winking to their cohorts and telling them out of the other side of their mouths that they aren't with the U.S.
It disgusts me especially when I think of all the Americans who sacrificed their lives to freely hand those, ungrateful, gutless, spiritless, excuses for human beings another chance at experiencing freedom.
We gave France back their country, handed it back to them freely. We demolished Germany and helped them rebuild. We devastated Japan and then taught them how to beat us at trade. We liberated Pacific Islands and European countries whose names we cannot pronounce and did it freely, decisively.
We very well could have left the defeated countries in ruins and returned home, however, it was also in our interest to create stability abroad.
I have been impressed with Britain, I just hope they can back their words with deeds. It's kind of ironic that we had France as our allies during our revolution against Britain, and we beat Britain, and today, Britain is our ally and France is in opposition.
Even worse is to see the protestors within our very own borders opposing our efforts against terrorism. Have they so quickly forgotten what happened to us on 9/11? Or do they even care?
I just cannot comprehend the mentality of any American who would be against us going to war against terrorism, I consider them un-American and treasonness. I can't understand why we have been so accomodating to all the opposition. Our citizens have been deliberately attacked and nearly 3,000 people have died, yet we must all stop, join a focus group and try and figure out what we've done wrong to deserve such a heinous act to be committed against us, to try to figure out why we've been punished.
That is flat out wrong and unacceptable, there should be no reservations, no considerations, no waivering, no political pandering, no waiting, no talking and no compromise. To do any of these things is a criminal injustice to all those who died on that day. They deserve retribution, revenge and justice. For those of you that don't agree with this, just imagine the most dearest person in you life being in one of the two building on that fateful day of September 9, 2001. And if you still don't feel hatred and feelings of revenge, then you are a cold heartless, soul-less being and don't deserve to be an American.

[Wildalaska]

.That is flat out wrong and unacceptable, there should be no reservations, no considerations, no waivering, no political pandering, no waiting, no talking and no compromise. To do any of these things is a criminal injustice to all those who died on that day. They deserve retribution, revenge and justice. For those of you that don't agree with this, just imagine the most dearest person in you life being in one of the two building on that fateful day of September 9, 2001. And if you still don't feel hatred and feelings of revenge, then you are a cold heartless, soul-less being and don't deserve to be an American.


Well thats sort of an bad attitude to take against those of us who subscribe to the "dont get mad, get even school". Its even a worse attitude to take against those loyal Americans who excesize their right to be heard on a process that affects all of us.

WildnevergooffhalfcockedAlaska

[KMKeller]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but don't consider anti-war protestors treasonous. That's the beauty of the 1st amendment.

[Tamara]

I just cannot comprehend the mentality of any American who would be against us going to war against terrorism, I consider them un-American and treasonness.

What strikes me as unAmerican and treasonous would be a law denying another American citizen their First Amendment rights...

[Wildalaska]

Tamara yer not supposed to be on the same side as me!:D

WildiamhonoredAlaska

[amprecon]

I certainly agree that there should be no law restricting any of our Constitutional rights, however, in my opinion, to oppose actions against terrorism is to condone terrorism. I will question any Americans loyalty when they take a side against justice, thereby exercising my 1st amendment right.

[T.Stahl]

We very well could have left the defeated countries in ruins and returned home, however, it was also in our interest to create stability abroad.

No, you did it to have a market for your goods. The same reason why there's foreign aid. You can only export goods to people earning money, not people living in ruins or the stone age.

That is flat out wrong and unacceptable, there should be no reservations, no considerations, no waivering, no political pandering, no waiting, no talking and no compromise. To do any of these things is a criminal injustice to all those who died on that day. They deserve retribution, revenge and justice.

To hurry up into a war in blind actionism, just to get even with the bad guys, without considering other options, without careful planning, without seeking diplomatic solutions, without seeking consensus with and support from the other "good guys" would be criminal carelessness to all those you are sending to fight and die in your war.

For those of you that don't agree with this, just imagine the most dearest person in you life being in one of the two building on that fateful day of September 9, 2001.

Amprecon, please imagine the most dearest person in your life dying in a war you started just because you felt the need for retribution and revenge. Amprecon, did you serve in the military? Are you personally willing to go and fight in the first line in the war that is about to be started?

[El Tejon]

The USA always pays the freight against evil. We paid the freight against Germany and Japan. We paid the freight against the CCCP. And now the Barbary pirates await our attention.

Gee, our European "allies" who are making money hand over fist in the Persian Gulf are hesitant to kill Saddam. Hmmm, wonder why?

Let the Europeans play both sides of the fence as they always have. We've the world to save.

[Waitone]

I think a good portion of the oppostion you see to Iraq II is based in honest questions as to the advisability of doing Iraq.

--Lots of questions are being asked about why Iraq and not North Korea
--Why Iraq and not Al Quaeda
--Why do we tolerate Saudi duplicity
--Why call Pakistan an ally when it evidently hides Osama and his minions
--Bush is avenging is father's attempted murder by Sadaam
--Bush is taking over Iraqi oils fields
--Ad nauseum

Me? I think action against Iraq is necessary and first in line for two reasons: 1>terrorism requires state sponsorship and Iraq is the most active sponsor at this point, 2>I believe Oklahoma City and TWA 800 were Iraqi operations.

My major concern is what happens after we win the war. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think we can "impose" a Jeffersonian republic on a people who know only despotism.

[T.Stahl]

Well, the last time Saddam knew it wasn't about kicking him from his throne or even killing him, it was just about getting Iraq out of Kuwait.

This time it's different and he has no reasons not to use his arsenal of WMDs, because he knows he's going to die or at least end up in front of a tribunal. What are you going to do when he really uses B- or C-Weapons against allied troops or his target of opportunity - Israel? Nuke Bagdad and let all hell break loose? Keep it conventional on your side and by not answering in kind showing all the other bad guys that there's no greater risk when they use non-conventional weapons against you? :confused:

[Preacherman]

As many have pointed out, there are large, hairy elephants in the living-room on this subject, and many are refusing to acknowledge their existence. I have no problem using military force against Hussein if this is justified, and if it is the only means remaining to achieve necessary ends: but I remain unconvinced that Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or any other act of terrorism against the USA. Sure, he's a world-class scumbag, and would significantly lower the moral level of any maximum-security prison he might be put in: but I have yet to see evidence clearly indicating that he's Public Enemy No. 1 as far as the US's national interests are concerned. If there is such evidence (and there may well be), I haven't seen it yet. Until I see it, I remain opposed to sending Americans to die, and risking a major regional conflict, including the use of weapons of mass destruction, without proper cause being proven. (And if anyone thinks that WMD won't be used, ask yourselves this - what do you think Israel's reaction will be if Hussein launches just one NBC-armed Scud against it? I think Iraq would be reduced to radioactive glass within a couple of hours... Israel is rather less restrained in its actions than we are! That will inevitably lead to the development of an "Islamic Bomb", paid for and held by all Moslem countries in the region, whether or not the rest of the world approves - and the massive instability in the region will now be led by suicidal, genocidal maniacs with nuclear capability all round. So much for global peace and stability...)

[TallPine]

I just cannot comprehend the mentality of any American who would be against us going to war against terrorism

Amprecon, you have to understand that some of us are opposed to some of the means of the "war against terrorism." A war against terrorism shouldn't have to mean a "war against the whole rest of the world" or a "war against civil rights"

Yeah, I share your feelings about the "blame America" crowd, and I also feel we have a pretty good track record as countries go (the Marshall Plan, etc) but that doesn't mean that everything the US does or might do is right, or even in our own best interests.

The only thing that can keep us on anything near the right track is the vocal clamor of citizens. I fear that we are following the Roman example and transitioning from a "republic" to an "empire"

[KRAUTGUNNER]

Hey amprecon, you and a lot of your fellow US citizens are vehemently demanding a war against Saddam and his rotten cronies.

O.K. fine!

Go to war and crush Iraq!

You can surely do that.

But will you Americans still be so trigger-happy when the corpses of thousands of your soldiers are arriving back home in those ugly black body-bags???

Remember Viet-Nam!

At first everybody cried "Let's **** the ******* commies" and a few years later millions of Americans protested vociferously against that "unjust, cruel and senseless" war.

Will y'all have the guts to finish that war for good???

THIS time the war against Iraq will not be as easily won as in Operation Desert Storm!

There will be a brutal urban warfare in Bagdad and other cities, where all those high-tech gimmicks of your army are useless.

It will be a fight on unknown terrain, on narrow streets, a fight for every house, room and basement in Bagdad!

There will be anti-personnel mines, booby-traps and suicide attackers.

As good as your Marines are, they are but human.

THIS time there will be a LOT of casualties!

Are you prepared for that? :confused:

[amprecon]

My credibility regarding this subject doesn't matter, I am an American with an opinion. I have gathered facts such as:
1) American citizens were deliberately slaughtered without presenting a threat to the attackers.
2) They attempted to destroy the heart of our military at the Pentagon.
3) They destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of American non-military assets.
4) They consistently and constantly target and kill innocent civilians, men, women and children.
5) Saddam Hussein funds and provides equipment and training for terrorist.
6) Saddam Hussein has a WMD program and threatens not only his region, but the entire world.

European countries are no strangers to terrorism, yet they refuse to take action against it. They would rather pacify them by meeting their demands and/or react to situations than nip the problem in the bud. They have decided to remain hostages in a sense, by not angering the Arab nations with political actions.
This is cowardice. It is their duty as "civilized" nations to end these cowardly acts as it is ours. There is no excuse.
This is a justified cause to go to war.

If it matters to those who might be concerned, I am a 10 year U.S. Navy veteran and in 1991 I volunteered to participate in Desert Storm, and would volunteer again. Unlike those of other countries, I have no doubts about the ability of our fighting forces. Unlike everyone else, we spent our money well. Unfortunately, when times like these come, everyone wants to use "our" military assets, because they refused to prepare.

And lastly, I feel no guilt in any sense for being an American. I will not sit back, join a focus group, or consider what I, or my country might have done wrong to deserve this. It's time to end terrorism.

[agricola]

amprecon,

there are a number of flaws in your reasoning.

i) for a start, European countries are not "strangers to terrorism". In my own country, we have been on the recieving end of more than thirty years of terrorist acts from the two sides of the issue of Northern Ireland, both in NI, on the mainland and throughout Europe. Using the rationale of Bush Jr., the US is a terrorist state because some of your citizens actively supported the IRA during its campaign of indiscriminate terror (both financially and, in at least one case, physically). States like Germany, France and even Belgium have all suffered from the Eurocommunist terror cells like the RAF, Direct Action, the CCC - almost one group per country. Spain has its ETA grouping, and Greece and Turkey N17 and Dev Sol, all of which (aside from the CCC) remain active to this day, a decade after the mother country fell. France and the UK have also been the targets of Islamist terror before 9/11. We therefore have greater experience of terror than you.

ii) Saddam Hussein is a tyrannical despot that should be brought on trial for his life, for crimes against his people, and war crimes from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. He heads a government of almost unimaginable brutality and deserves to be removed from office. However, he also heads one of the most secular regimes in the Middle East, and as such he is considered in fundamentalist Islamic circles as worse than the United States and the Christianized West. Immediately after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Usama Bin Laden offered to the Kingdom of Saud his mujahadeen to defend the kingdom and its holy places against the Iraqis, but he was rebuffed in favour of the US-led coalition forces. UBL and the various al-Qaeda groups are highly unlikely to have been trained or funded by the Iraqis, and its difficult to think of any international terrorist incident that can be directly attributed to the Iraqi Intelligence services - given that the assasination of the (i think) Swedish PM and Dr Gerald Bull are far more likely to have been the work of Mossad or the Iranians than anyone else.

iii) Why should sovereign states have their foreign policy dictated to them? The French government was elected by the French people to govern and represent France. They have chosen in some areas not to stand with the US. Dont forget, that for every 1917 and 1944, the French can cite an occasion where theyve been left in the lurch (as they would see it) - 1940, the proposed operation to relieve Dien Bien Phu (which would have resulted in the French and loyalist Vietnamese holding the Red River Delta and so made the 1963-1975 war far less likely). European states will never follow blindly the lead of the US, and indeed public opinion in the UK is swinging against war.

The question is whether or not Iraq presents a danger to the US or the West in its current state. The answer, even when one considers the issue of WMD, is no. I feel more disturbed about many other countries than I do about Iraq, and, more importantly, those countries both have WMD and have supported, and continue to support, terrorist groups throughout the world.

Iraq is both weak and rich; and as any robber will tell you, they are the best marks.

[amprecon]

Agricola,
I stated that: "European countries are no strangers to terrorism, yet they refuse to take action against it." In other words, they have experienced it, and I agree, much more frequently than we have.
I don't want my country to impose "Americana" upon the rest of the world. What I want, which is what most people of the world want, is to be free from threat. We want to go to the market and not have to worry if someone is strapping 10lbs of explosives around their "waste"(intentionally spelled this way). We don't want to worry about someone releasing a biological or chemical agent during the middle of a sports event. Saddam Hussein is unquestionably involved in supporting terrorism.
I think we all can agree on this common goal. But to achieve it requires certain actions and decisions and sacrifices to be made to achieve this goal. America is willing to make those difficult decisions and sacrifices, it perplexes me that others are not. I interpret this as though they enjoy living in a non-secure and dangerous atmosphere.
And I don't associate with robbers, we shoot them or put them in jail.

[Freedom in theSkies]

Something that's been bothering me worse than the 9/11 attacks is the attitude of our supposed allies. It disgusts me to hear opposition from the U.N., NATO, France, Germany, Canada and all the other countries who pay lip service to us while winking to their cohorts and telling them out of the other side of their mouths that they aren't with the U.S.

My first thought was "Your proctologist called...they found your head"... But I think you need more help...

I propose that you take a look around you and see just how many other countries are supporting the War Against Terrorism. You might be shocked.
As we all know, the U.S. is leading the war effort, however it does not mean that other countries are'nt sharing the burden.
I was in Florida over Christmas, and it did not look as though the entire State was preparing for all out war... Granted, there were several thousand State Militia being called to active duty...
Business was "as usual" in all the consumer based venues and theme parks...


We gave France back their country, handed it back to them freely. We demolished Germany and helped them rebuild. We devastated Japan and then taught them how to beat us at trade. We liberated Pacific Islands and European countries whose names we cannot pronounce and did it freely, decisively.

We? - What... Have you got a mouse in your shorts?
How can YOU be so arrogant as to say it was the efforts of the U.S. alone that liberated Europe from the Axis? There were alot more countries that stood shoulder to shoulder as one fighting force. I have several uncles who served in the European theatre from 1940 till after VE Day.
Let me remind you that the U.S. did not enter WW1 till 1917, the 4th year of war and WW2 until directly attacked in 1941...The third year of the war!

And if you still don't feel hatred and feelings of revenge, then you are a cold heartless, soul-less being and don't deserve to be an American.
If revenge is all you want, then I feel sorry for you... Do you want to search out and destroy everyone and anyone who has muttered contempt against the policies of the U.S.?
GRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:cuss:

[amprecon]

Freedom in theSkies,
I would expect no less from a canadian. I know from whence part of your body you speak from.
I do understand we have allies, but I am not blind to the fact that our other "supposed" allies, actually aren't.
Your country has been under scrutiny for allowing free movement of terrorist within its borders.

And as far as "we" liberating Europe, yep. "WE" did. Where would they be if we didn't get involved? We could've been like the Swiss and remained neutral, but we didn't. We got involved and WE were the determining factor in the outcome.
We spent most of our time waiting for Gen. Montgomery to catch up because we wanted to be polite to the British government, make them feel "part of the team".
Yes I am bragging, because I am proud of our abilities and accomplishments and don't doubt them now.
I'm sorry you don't have the basis to brag about your countries history and abilities as do I.
I also stated: "They deserve retribution, revenge and justice." Not just revenge.

[G-Raptor]

I, for one, am sick and tired of begging our so-called allies for help. The UN is a joke and NATO isn't much better. Either get with the program, or get out of the way.

The bottom line is real simple, the US has been under attack by Islamic fundamentalist for the past 20 years. It didn't start on 9/11 - that was just big attention getter. We are at war with people who want to destroy western civilization so they can impose Islamic law. It's that simple. It's a continuous of the ancient crusades, but nobody wants to say that. These people are supported by nations such as Irag, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

The Europeans have experienced terrorism too, but their solution is to "talk nice" to the terrorists and hope they will be overlooked. But their "wake up call" is coming.

People ask why should we be more concerned about Iraq than North Korea? That too is simple. Its a difference in motive.

North Korea's principal interest is in regaining control of South Korea. Take a look at a map sometime. Korea is a little peninsula hanging off the butt of China. What are they going to do after they have South Korea, invade China? Only if they have a huge deathwish. Invade Japan? Ain't gonna happen. Korea is a small dog in a fenced yard. They make a lot of noise until you open the gate and the big dog walks in. The big dog at the gate of Korea is China. NOTHING is going to happen in Korea that the Chinese don't approve first.

Iraq is a completely different story. Saddam wants to be King of the middle east. He's shown that he is ready, willing, and able to invade ALL his neighbors if not constrained by a powerful outside force (i.e. us). If the Israelis hadn't destroyed his nuclear powerplant in '88, he would have had nuclear weapons in '91. The Gulf war wouldn't have happened. After invading Kuwait Saddam would have simply overpowered (or blackmailed) Iran and Saudi Arabia before the US could have reacted. He would own the middle east. And that plan is still in his playbook. He just needs a little more time to pull it off.

If that happens, then one man will control virtually the entire oil supply. What do you think he will do with that power? The Europeans will give him anything he "asks" for.

War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary. It is necessary now while we have the strength to end it quickly. Delaying only gives the advantage to the enemy.

[Wildalaska]

Saddam Hussein is unquestionably involved in supporting terrorism.

So is Saudi Arabia and we arent gonna bomb them are we?

WildwhatsallthisgottodowithgunsanywayAlaska

[El Tejon]

Wild, absolutely. Well, just certain branches of that hydra called the "Saudi royal family" ([tune of "bluebird, bluebird through my window"] SEAL Team, SEAL Team through their window). No one has taken out the trash over there in a long time [our fault as others have pointed out] and the filth has hit our shores. Time to wipe it clean just as we did in Europe.

Freedom, no doubt many brave men in other nations have helped us in the past, present and future, including our neighbors in Canada. However, the US carried the load in WWII, WWIII, the Persian Gulf and now the War of the Barbary pirates. Without us the world would have been lost dozens of times. We will do the killing as those we protect do the whimpering.

Of course that is not fair, but life is not. The question remains not whether we can defeat the Barbary pirates, but as Alexander skazal whether we retain the vitality to allow ourselves to win.

[T.Stahl]

I thought the military action against the Iraq is officially about Saddam's unwillingness to comply with UN sanctions to get rid of all his WMDs? And not about Saddam's possible (and I agree, unlikely) involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.

And definitely not about revenge and retaliation.
(If it was about revenge and retaliation, about equalizing the body count, then why not send a wing of B-52s and flatten Bagdad? Much cheaper and less own casualties.)

I doubt that Saddam was involved in these attacks. Agricola is right, of all the muslim states in Northern Africa and the Middle East, the Iraq is the most secular, the one where Christians don't need to be afraid. (I like to make the joke that the real reason why the German army didn't participate in the '91 war was that our tanks and aircraft have crosses as national insignias. Ever tried to openly wear a christian cross in Saudi Arabia?)

If the inspectors are given enough time and power to carry out their investigations and find WMDs in Iraq's possession, then - by all means - see that they will be destroyed, if necessary use military force.

But attacking and invading Iraq to get even for something they didn't do, to work off your anger or to "finish a job" and doing so for an officially completely differnt reason, is wrong.

[Matthew Courtney]

The USA always pays the freight against evil. We paid the freight against Germany and Japan. We paid the freight against the CCCP. And now the Barbary pirates await our attention.

IIRC, the Soviets defeated 2/3's of the Germany army in WWII.

[El Tejon]

Matthew, yes, they did. With Stalin whining for a second front for years. With the CCCP using our equipment, food and money. Without the US, all of Europe, with the exception of Switzerland maybe, would German slaves. With the US all of Europe would be Soviet slaves. Without the US, a gaggle of 7th century goatherders would bring civilization to its knees.

T. Stah, officially via the UN, you are correct. But we all know Saddam must die. When you have a problem coon in your garden, you shoot it and pike its head to drive off the other raccoons. Same here.

We will not kill him for revenge. If we wanted revenge, many in the Saudi royal family, as well as the rich spoiled elite throughout the Arab world, would be dead. One does not send a wing of B52s to do a SEAL Team or, better yet, a CIA operative's job.

Yes, UBL and the other Barbary pirates despise secular Iraq, but the enemy of the enemy is my friend. Iraq needs to be turned from a supply source of the enemy to at least neutral, better yet a friendly as Germany and Japan are now. After Iraq, we will be in a better position to wipe out the scattered band of Babary pirates as they will be without one additional supply conduit.

[Zander]

To hurry up into a war in blind actionism, just to get even with the bad guys, without considering other options, without careful planning, without seeking diplomatic solutions, without seeking consensus with and support from the other "good guys" would be criminal carelessness to all those you are sending to fight and die in your war. -- Herr StahlI suppose, if they were still alive, that my peers, associates and friends who died in the attacks on September 11th would disagree with you. I most certainly do.

We are at war against mortal enemies who would destroy our nation. We intend to do what is necessary to protect our nation, just as we did what was necessary to protect our nation against Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's communist/collectivists.

RE: rebuilding Europe post-WWII...

We did it only because we had to have trade?!? Do you have any conception of the cost assessed to the average American taxypayer to rebuild the countries who were our sworn, mortal enemies? We had no obligation to do what we did. We did it because we wanted to help...and for no other reason, as if any other was required.

Your opinion represents arrant nonsense...IMO, of course.

...the Christianized West. Infinitely superior on all levels to the Islamicized East.

BTW, where 'ya been...waitin' on someone to re-up your ISP stipend? LOL!

[El Tejon]

Zander, I'm just not concerned with what the Euros think. I think we have to give them their version of history otherwise how could they live with themselves.

They want to play both sides of the fence to continue milking their business dealings in the Persian Gulf. However, when we swoop down to kill Saddam, they will quickly fall in line.

They did the same thing with Hitler. They did they same thing with the CCCP. They want the best of both worlds.

No matter. We'll fix the car and they'll stand to the side with their arms folded and cluck that it's not going fast enough. Oh, well.

[2dogs]

"stinkin allies"- yep that about sums them up.:neener:

[agricola]

el tejon,

sorry, but this:

"They did the same thing with Hitler. They did they same thing with the CCCP. They want the best of both worlds."

is utter nonsense. for a start, despite the shameful appeasement at Munich, we did declare war on Hitler after he invaded Poland and, prior to that, we had been clearly rearming in the expectation that we would have to deal with him. The US, on the other hand, did not declare war to come to the aid of Europe, or to restore democracy and freedom to the Old World. You didnt declare war on Nazi Germany, period - they declared war on you.

Iraq is not, and has never been, a supplier of terrorist arms to the terror groups that you are at war with. Iraq is also one of the (to my mind three) states in the whole Middle East that doesnt actively discriminate against Christians (Tariq Aziz, for instance, is Christian). Saying that Iraq is behind or even supporting the islamofascist terror groups is deeply wrong; pretty much every other country in the region has done more to assist al-Qaeda and yet its Iraq that faces the ire of the West.

The conflict is clearly about the securing for the US of a stable oil-supplier in the Middle East. That would make you the pirates, wouldnt it?

zander,

would you believe someone stole my ID?

[El Tejon]

It's the Europeans who have the oil business in Iraq. If we want oil, we'll buy it or just drill in Alaska. We want Saddam dead. Arrrrr, yo ho ho and pieces of Saddam.

Who cares if Saddam is mean to churchie types or not? The other countries in the Middle East will have their turn after we deal with Iraq. I still think there are better ways to kill these people other than sending in the 3d ID, but maybe we are saving those means for our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Europe continued to play both sides during WW2. England did up until September 1, 1939. After Hitler, Europeans did the same thing with the CCCP. The Europeans are doing the same thing in the Middle East. Like I said earlier I think you have to give them this as they have a lot of money at stake. They will quickly fall in line just like the last Gulf War (or after we pike Saddams head on the mainstay--"jolly good show. We were right behind you, old man.")

[amprecon]

Agricola,
I don't know why you don't believe Iraq hasn't supported terrorism, because he has. Regardless, we are at war against terrorism, Saddam is himself a terrorist and a regional threat which makes him an enemy.
I'm trying to understand your defending them, are you a sympathizer?

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'm one of those who was out in the street yesterday, and have the sore feet to show for it. My first response was also to want to make a rude suggestion. I then thought I'd try to make a reasonable argument, but others have already done a better job than I could to show the absurdity of the whole premise that attacking Iraq has anything to do with 9/11.

The bottom line for me is that the administration has not made the case for war. There is no pressing national security threat. There is no credible threat to any ally of ours. There is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, Beirut, Somalia, the attack on Pearl Harbor or the sinking of the Lusitania.

The world needs a good way to deal with bad guys. It doesn't need a self-appointed world cop, especially one with a long history of supporting and bankrolling bad guys.

I am really begining to believe 9/11 did more damage to the American psyche than anyone has guessed. To see it being used as a pretext for attacking a sovereign nation that was not remotely involved is disturbing. We are becoming very close to being a society that will believe anything the rulers and their propaganda machine say.

One of the best sign I saw yesterday said, "Bush/Orwell '04".

[agricola]

amprecon,

ok, please show me one incident of a terrorist group attacking the US or Western interests that were sponsored by the Iraqis or Iraqi intelligence. I guarantee you, for that one incident there will be five that have links to elements within Saudi Arabia, and ten that are linked to or funded by the Iranians. Even if you include the raising of money for the families of suicide bombers, dont forget that throughout the middle east the collection goes on (indeed Saudi Arabia had a telethon) and of the main groups, almost all are much more heavily supported by Iran or the other Islamic states.

I'm not a sympathiser of Saddam (but spoken in the true doublethink style!), he needs to face justice for his many crimes against his people; this however is not about that (because up until 1990, when the vast majority of those crimes occured, he was our man in Baghdad), its about something else. My bet is, like many, on oil; however they may be out to set a precedent, an example for the rest of the world to show who is in charge; you may think that a grand idea, but whatever the US means to people, about it being the land of the free, the last good place on earth, will die forever that day. You'll be no different from any of the other hegemon that have come before you, us, the Romans and all the others. Is it worth it?

Malone is right, just because you were attacked, those in power are using that as an excuse to (or a shade for) their own aims. Iraq did not attack you on 9/11, nor did the North Koreans. Why is the US going after these people while, of the real culprits, only one has been detained?

It comes down to one question - is Iraq a threat to the United States?

[amprecon]

As I have said before, we are at war against terrorism. Terrorism threatens peace, security and free trade. Without peace, security and the freedom to trade we regress. We retreat to within our own borders and other countries, whose very existence relies on trade, will shrivel up and die on the vine.

Unstable governments which possess, or are in the process of acquiring, weapons of mass destruction, constitute a clear and present danger to the peace and security and freedom to trade. This does not only threaten the United States, but every member of the entire global economy.

Iraq and North Korea, among others, represent this type of threat. Bush is merely refusing to allow these unstable entities from acquiring the means to hold the economy hostage. Now how in the h*ll can that be wrong?

Is it about oil? YES. Is it about money? YES. Is it about the rich getting richer? YES. But let me say this, money is what makes the world go 'round. We all need it, we all prosper when we acquire more of it than what it costs to live comfortably.

If the rich did not get richer, do you think they would invest any of that money? NO. Do you think they would expand the business which made them prosper? NO. When they refuse to further invest in your area because of the risks involved where will you go to work? You won't.

Lives become easier, better and more confortable. Technology is achieved through money spent, through investments in companies that have expertise in their particular fields. Some of those companies are trying to find cures for cancer, aids and other chronic and debilitating diseases.

In all your anti-war propoganda, you would rather see them not find a cure for cancer?

[agricola]

youve avoided the point:

i) what proof is there that Iraq has carried out or assisted in the carrying out of terrorist acts against the West;

ii) is that evidence such that it shows that Iraq is particularly bad when it comes to a comparison with the likes of Iran, Syria, Libya or even Saudi Arabia?

iii) what evidence is there that Iraq was planning or had the capability, or even had the will, to conduct a strike against a Western target?

at the end of your post, i think you see whats going on. i can appreciate that people join the military from a feeling of acting to defend their country from aggressors, to protect their homes and from a patriotic sentiment; but would you as a veteran feel fine about risking your life, and your comrades lives, in order to make someone else richer?

[Wildalaska]

War solely for the purpose of enriching our nation is beneath us..

WildwarsucksAlaska

[eotp]

The bottom line for me is that the administration has not made the case for war. There is no pressing national security threat. There is no credible threat to any ally of ours. There is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, Beirut, Somalia, the attack on Pearl Harbor or the sinking of the Lusitania.

I agree. We started out going after guys in Afghanistan responsible for 9/11, and the next thing we know is Jr. wants to take care of his dad's former nemesis.

The case supporting a war with Iraq hasn't been made. This war is a waste of billions of dollars and no telling how many young American lives.

[Malone LaVeigh]

As I have said before, we are at war against terrorism.It was a ridiculous thing to say then, it still is. Even if you accept the absurd notion that one can wage war against a tactic, then you should be waging war against those who promote or commit acts of terrorism. Not some tinhorn, backwater dictator that spit in your daddy's eye. Your continued harping on the terror issue is more evidence for my hypothesis. 9/11 damaged us bad.

In some cases, it seems to have done brain damage...