Some thoughts

They don't understand what they're doing, do they?

Their efforts to achieve declared goals give just the opposite results.

Two main declared goals - to prevent spreading of WMD and to guarantee safety of citizens. And what are the achieved results?

Banal comparison of two situations - with Iraq and North Korea - reveals, that the only way to save sovereignty for a small and not conforming to American standards nation is to possess an atom bomb. And one more thing to take into account - it's not all that difficult to make an atom bomb in our times, any student is able to make it, assuming technical baseline's availability.

The chosen way of securing citizens' safety is another piece of junk. Looks like the only result this "protection" brings is the fact that Americans will be killed all over the world, and not because of blinding brutal hatred, the reasons will be strictly pragmatic - to strike the most vulnerable point. If some terrorist group will start to kill (wherever) 10 American people per day demanding Bush's retirement - Bush will have to leave White House within a month.

Really, in the current situation the only guarantee of safety and sovereignty for a small country is the possession of an atom bomb with a readiness to use it. Because it looks like decisions of an American side can be changed only by battle casualties - and mostly civil casualties.

May be I don't understand something, but it looks like in a week or two Americans better stay in the US, or they may get hurt. To many people are aggressively against their ways.

I wonder, is there someone in American government having higher-than-Bush IQ? Or they all are below 100 points?

Why do you keep saying Bush's IQ is low? Have you seen an IQ test that he took? If so I'd like to see it. It may answer some questions.

Anyway, the purpose of this invasion is not to stop the spread of WMD. It is to disarm a country that lost a war, and agreed to terms of surrender.(ones that have not been fullfilled) The humanitarian/terrorism reasons are just a few more thrown in for good measure.

I was for the war in the beginning, because those reasons are sound enough for me. Now I think this is a distraction. From what, I don't know, but it must be somthing big. There is always another purpose behind each war.

I just wonder what this one is...

Blah blah blah.

I've heard all this before, "This is going to breed even MORE terrorists" waaa waaa

Time to stop being a nation of cowards and appeasers. I was at the towers on 9/11 buddy and I don't fear these scumbags. They need to be dealt with and thats just what we are doing.

You talk about Bush and IQ points, you have a degree from an Ivy League school?

joe - you say you think this is about Iraq living up to it's surrender agreement, but then you say you don't think that's what this is about. How do you mean? Do you mean that Iraq is being attacked for different reasons than those stated? Or just that this is all perfectly valid but something sinister is going on while this is used as cover?

jms - why did 9/11 happen? Because of percieved US injustices. Because UBL got pissed off because he thought the US were invading Saudi Arabia, because he thought the US were a nasty country.

Do you think the foreign perception of the US's righteousness has gone up since this attack started? I don't. And that means more terrorism, or at least, more attempted terrorism, and more volunteers for terrorist organisations.

Sinister...
I think the reasons are sound. The ones they have seem like a good enough reason to invade and take Saddam out of power.

But I believe somthing else is planned. I think that there is another purpose to this war. It may be the spark that sets off WW3.

You remember the quote from Einstein? I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but the ones to follow will be fought with rocks and sticks.(not the exact wording but close enough for my point)

WW3 could wreck the world's economy and balance. Chaos follows...people look for a leader...and BAM! The world is under the influence of a new order. (a new world order)

Sinister is the word...

I don't really agree. I think the reasons for this war aren't particularly sound, but this is about extending US influence and power.

However, assuming you're right and this war is being fought for good reasons, wouldn't WW3 as a potential side effect strike you as a great argument on why this attack doesn't make any sense? Do you think that Bush is in on it?

Originally posted by dom
jms - why did 9/11 happen? Because of percieved US injustices. Because UBL got pissed off because he thought the US were invading Saudi Arabia, because he thought the US were a nasty country.

Do you think the foreign perception of the US's righteousness has gone up since this attack started? I don't. And that means more terrorism, or at least, more attempted terrorism, and more volunteers for terrorist organisations.

9/11 happened because some wackos decided that Allah wants them to kill Americans, thats why. When your dealing with wackos you have to deal with them in a way they understand. The only thing they understand is violence, so now we are showing them we do violence better than they do.

Personally I could care less what the worlds perception of us is, we need to defend ourselves not the world.

What would your suggestion be to stopping terrorism?

My suggestion would be that the US should start treating the world with respect and stop acting like a bunch of overly aggressive idiots.

If you aren't willing to accept that people have genuine greivances against the US, then you'll never be able to sort out those problems. Calling Al-Qaida a group of wackos might feel good, but it doesn't help you to find out what's really going on.

Sadly I do think Bush is in on it. I support him,(or his false image at least) and I support the government. (or what the constitution says the government is supposed to be)

I think Blair also in on it. Along with Bin Laden and maybe even Saddam. I can guarantee (if I'm right so far) that the leaders of Russia, China, Germany, and France are in on it too.(sorry didn't want to write all their names out)

I think they are all puppets, being used by the same organization. The goal-to get as much of the populace behind them as possible. And how would you do this? The only way would be to start over from scratch, to destroy the world (economically and politically) as we know it. The suffering people would support them, because they would make promises of freedom, peace, and happiness.

Ok, now that I've let my imagination get miles away from me, I'll just go take a nap.

I agree with you dom, ABOUT seeing the picture all the way around. Patroitism can blind you to a certain extent. Just be careful not to reacess and research thoroughly. You go listening to one source and it'll blind you...........

Jerimiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperatly wicked, who can know it? KJV

USP - Do you realise that we agree on something!

Joe - Cheers for that explanation. To be honest with you I'd generally go with ockum's razor (how is it spelt? I've only ever heard it said). Basically, the most likely answer is probably correct. So, I think Bush is attacking Iraq for some reason. Having looked into the WMD/terrorism arguments I don't think that'll be the reason, I don't think Bush is a moral person so we can discount "saving the Iraqi people", which generally leaves regional influence, finishing dadies business, proving the US are still a superpower, taking our eyes off the economy, stimulating ecomonic growth, etc..

I'm pretty sure France and the US are not on the same side in this case.

Originally posted by dom
My suggestion would be that the US should start treating the world with respect and stop acting like a bunch of overly aggressive idiots.

If you aren't willing to accept that people have genuine greivances against the US, then you'll never be able to sort out those problems. Calling Al-Qaida a group of wackos might feel good, but it doesn't help you to find out what's really going on.

I would like to know how you think the US is acting like "a bunch of overly aggressive idiots"?

Also I would like to know what Al-Qaida's "genuine greivances" are?

Please splain to me....

"Two main declared goals - to prevent spreading of WMD and to guarantee safety of citizens. And what are the achieved results?

Banal comparison of two situations - with Iraq and North Korea - reveals, that the only way to save sovereignty for a small and not conforming to American standards nation is to possess an atom bomb."

Actually, you're misquoting the goals here. The first part isn't to stop the spread of WOMD, but to disarm them, from someone who, (as terms of surrender) agreed to do so, but then didn't. The second part of the goal is correct, and so far, we have been doing more than the Enemy has in this regard, even as relates to their own citizens. If instead, you are speaking of protecting American citizens, then that goal too, will be met, albeit with short-term increased risk, but long-term, the goal will be realized.

The bit about small countries having to live up to American standards, is likewise false. The ONLY standard we expect them to live up to, is not to harbor or support terrorists. There are plenty of small countries who aren't exactly friendly to the US (nor living up to our "standards"), but who, nonetheless, aren't exactly in our sights, because they don't harbor them. Iraq, as a sponsor of terrorism, is in those cross-hairs because they chose to be.

Where I agree with many of the anti-war members, is that this war is being fought for reasons other than those being stated publicly. Indeed, the Bush camp better get on the ball soon, and start proving that these reasons were well-founded (i.e. find some chemical caches...). However, where I disagree with many of them, is that (as an American) I agree with the more hidden agendas, as also being valid reasons for the war, with the stated goals being nice secondary ones, resulting from it.

This is really more about improving the US Economy, and improving stability in the Middle East, as it relates to US global positioning. By the installation of another US-friendly nation in the region, we can minimize the fanaticism of the region in general a little bit. Likewise, the goal of getting rid of a known terrorist sponsor is also a primary goal. Regardless of what press you choose to believe, there ARE terrorist training camps in Iraq, and they are, in essence, permitted to be there by the Saddam regime.

I would have preferred that this war come from the UN. Unfortunately, it became obvious that the out-dated structure of the UN was self-defeating, in the face of today's issues. By it's own doing, (i.e. allowing it's directives to be repeatedly ignored for a dozen years), it became ineffective, and incapable of enforcing it's own will. When that point became evident, as usual, the US stepped up to the plate. Sure, we could have waited forever and a day for inspections to trickle and slowly reveal what we all know is there....but the cost of such, was not worth this risk. That's the difference between the US and many other nations. We're not afraid to assume the risk of world opinion, and do what needs to be done, and we're damned proud of it. I wonder how many other countrymen of various countries get a tear in their eye when their national anthem is played, or even a patriotic song? I'll tell you one thing, when they're played here, there isn't a dry eye in the house...

>I would like to know how you think the US is acting like "a bunch of overly aggressive idiots"?
>
>Also I would like to know what Al-Qaida's "genuine greivances" are?

I've already stated some of Al-Qaida's problems with the US. US troops in Saudi Arabia, the general impression that the US are trying to take over the Middle East, the Israel-Palestinian situation. Personally UBL is pretty pissed off with the CIA, who left him and a lot of his men for dead in Afghanistan (back in the late 80s). Basically, it's all about the perception that the US are trying to crush the Middle East under their heel.

And the overly aggressive nature? Try attacking Iraq without international backing, or threatening to attack Iran/Syria in public, or GWB talking about the axis of evil, or GWB saying "you're with us or against us", etc. etc. etc..

Donald Rumsfield is the US's WORST PR tool. GWB is the second worst. And Richard Perle is a close third.

regardless of UBL's beefs...it does NOT justify the DELIBERATE killing of thousands of innocents. It doesn't justify it for the Palestinians either. It is TERRORISM. Did the US make mistakes with UBL? Of course. But that still doesn't justify his actions, nor does it place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the US. It was HIS decision, on how to deal with it.

I will agree with you on Rumsfeld, and GWB, Perle though... The frickin' 3 Stooges....

Sorry for the double post, but Gazrok, the fact that the US is so patriotic is part of the problem. It blinds the US people to the possibility that they are *NOT* the guardians of truth and light in the world. It also crushes public dissent. If you want to look for another country with a similalry stimulated sense of patriotism try Nazi Germany. Honestly, I'm not trying to be flippant, there are a lot of similarities. I'm not trying to say that GWB is Hitler, or that the US people are Nazi's, I'm just saying that the two regimes have a similar approach to patriotism.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does require an honest leader for it to work properly. As soon as you end up with a tyrant at the top he's got all the power in the world (although GWB probably can't stop the political process just yet).

As for the UN, Hans Blix was due to present his final list of tasks a few days after the attacks started. Inspections should have been finished within 2 months of that session. At that point the diplomatic route would have been at the end of the road if Saddam still wasn't cooperating. We could even have had a second resolution with this deadline placed in it (yes it would have had to come back to the security council for explicit war backing, but the US would probably have got that if Blix wasn't 100% happy with Saddam by the time of the deadline [which would have been 4-8 weeks not 4-8 days]). But the US attacked anyway and ignored the diplomatic process.

I'm pretty sure France and the US are not on the same side in this case.

I'm not so sure. Maybe their governments and people dislike each other, but that doesn't rule out the possiblity that they are being controlled by the same organization.

It's more likely that they don't even know they are being led like sheep. Maybe Bush doesn't know either. They probably don't even know they are pawns. Then again, they might all sit down and have a satelite broadcast conference.

Gazrok - I don't think UBL's actions are justified. I'm just saying what I percieve his reasons to be. If you want to prevent future attacks, you have to understand the process that lead to these ones. To do that you *have* to examine what UBL's reasons were...

As I've said, we should have tried harder through the UN, and the method was there... I've never been a fan of Bush's handling of this. That said though, I don't think there would have been another resolution authorizing war. The inspectors were led by their noses, and 3 perm SC members would have vetoed the war resolution. Had Bush cited other objectives, and made a strong enough case for them, he would have had those 3 nations support. He failed to utilize all of the resources available to him, and make the case airtight. THAT was where he made the mistake.

As for the Blind Patriotism....it isn't blind, and it's been here way before Bush, and it will be there way after...