Men love war because it allows them to look serious. Because it is the one thing that stops women laughing at them.

-- John Fowles (The Magus, 1965)

This thread is crap.
You're all arguing over a link that was clearly written by somebody with an anti-war mentality.

Notice the style of writing? Phrases like "mass slaughter"? Clearly a liberal peice of trash prose.

I have to admit that any US government smokescreen would seem justified though. Judging from the reactions here Iraq would never be free and terrorism would be left to run riot if your opinions that only WoMD were the reaons behind this war. That doesn't mean to say that they won't be found though. It's funny how soon many of you forget that Iraq had all sorts of lethal concoctions and how they tried to hide them from the UN. It's almost as if you believe there never were any biological and chemical weapons. It's still far to early to start whining that they will never be found and that our governments are lying to us.
I've never believed that destroying WoMD were the sole aims of the action in Iraq. They were the trigger that allowed America and it's allies to start sorting out the anarchy that is the Middle East.
For all those of you who are screaming about how you have been deceived, why not try looking at the issue in a logical way? War is never good and world opinion was set against this one. The fact is that the removal of Saddam is a major stepping stone to peace in the Middle East. Would you rather have another 911 emenating from that region or would you rather have your government act to create a more stable and peaceful world?
WoMD are a minor issue. Their existence was used for propaganda and world opinion. If you thought that they were the be all and end all of any war in Iraq you seriously need to wake up and smell the roses. For people who claim to be suspicious of Western governments and intelligent enough to read past Whitehouse press releases some of you are sure naive.

VzH interesting statement but in a world where is some parts one can buy a woman for the same price as a rifle it is somewhat premature. Injustices such as slavery in this age is very real to presume otherwise insults the intelligence of both men and women. War is not trivial and neither is it a cause meant to impress anyone.

VzH - I wonder if youre serious, Men don't go to war because we want to be taken serious, we go to war because we "MEN" want to protect our way of life.

If women want more equal rights I suggest that they go to war while the men stay at home and make apple pies, waiting for their women and daughters to come home from the war.

VzH- would you live in that world or the one we live in today.

I do like your statement because my old girlfriend always said males were not superior to women. I'd always response by saying, "only when it comes to giving birth."

Maybe thats why I'm single

[Edited on 5/4/2003 by FoxStriker]

Toltec - When your country tries to argue that it should be the one that runs the world, it should be the one to decide who's good and who's evil. When your country attacks other countries which aren't actually posing an active threat. Then I think it becomes relevant to think about whether or not we can really trust the US to do a good job. Although the US has no Hitler or Stalin, I do think it's consciously cost the lives of a lot of people over the last 40 years, and I don't trust it to become an ethical country. Certainly, this war on Iraq looks distinctly unethical right now.

Leveller - Honestly mate, you've really fallen for the arguments 100%, but let's just deconstruct your post...

"This thread is crap.
You're all arguing over a link that was clearly written by somebody with an anti-war mentality. "

Ok, so anyone who argues against the war is clearly wrong. Great argument.

"Judging from the reactions here Iraq would never be free and terrorism would be left to run riot if your opinions that only WoMD were the reaons behind this war. "

You're assuming Iraq is some kind of terrorism issue. It's not. And WoMD WERE the main argument for launching this attack. That's where the credible threat came from.

"It's funny how soon many of you forget that Iraq had all sorts of lethal concoctions and how they tried to hide them from the UN."

Well, they actually destroyed them all after the Gulf War, and then spent years lying about what they'd destroyed. If you look at VX gas, it was all destroyed post-Gulf War (according to Scott Ritter), but it took 4 years for the inspectors to find enough evidence to show that the destroyed VX was weaponised and ready for use.

"They were the trigger that allowed America and it's allies to start sorting out the anarchy that is the Middle East."

Yeah, war is a really stable thing to do. And now you've got a country susceptible to breaking into three distinct countries, with all the civil infighting that goes along with that. How incredibly stable! And the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Any hope of a solution there? I doubt it.

"The fact is that the removal of Saddam is a major stepping stone to peace in the Middle East. Would you rather have another 911 emenating from that region or would you rather have your government act to create a more stable and peaceful world? "

The most definitive link between 911 and a Middle Eastern country is between Saudi Arabia and 911. And yet SA is a US ally, so no action is going to be taken there. There are NO links between 911 and Iraq.

"WoMD are a minor issue."

If we'd found them you wouldn't be saying that. Or if they'd been used by the Iraqi army, as we were lead to believe they would be, then it wouldn't be a minor issue.

"Their existence was used for propaganda and world opinion."

Well, their alleged existence certainly was...

"If you thought that they were the be all and end all of any war in Iraq you seriously need to wake up and smell the roses. For people who claim to be suspicious of Western governments and intelligent enough to read past Whitehouse press releases some of you are sure naive."

You're right. This war wasn't about WMD, it was all about US influence in the Middle East. Which is why we didn't support this war in the first place!

When your country tries to argue that it should be the one that runs the world, it should be the one to decide who's good and who's evil. When your country attacks other countries which aren't actually posing an active threat. Then I think it becomes relevant to think about whether or not we can really trust the US to do a good job. Although the US has no Hitler or Stalin, I do think it's consciously cost the lives of a lot of people over the last 40 years, and I don't trust it to become an ethical country. Certainly, this war on Iraq looks distinctly unethical right now.

How can the war in Iraq look unethical when its people are reacting the way they are?

When the press agencies which are accepted as local for all the time that Saddam was in power failed to report what was going on in that country?

When the UN, an agency originally designed to stop such behavior does to this date not even acknowledge it is real.

Prior to this war, Iraq was a representative in respect to the
Human rights commission in the UN.

And now it is Cuba, do you think this decision was made by the United
States?


Dom when a country is the leader of the world then whatever happens in the world is its responsibility, to presume otherwise fails to identify the real definition of a leader.

Dom a question for you is who else would you trust?

[Edited on 6-5-2003 by Toltec]

I would trust an organisation which included all of the major superpowers. That's who I'd trust.

I would not trust George Bush or Richard Perle or Wolfowitz or Rumsfield, which right now means that I would not trust the US.

The UN have often stated that Iraq are guilty of human rights abuses. I don't think anyone doubts that. The weapons inspectors were inspecting WMD's not human rights abuses! And the point of the UN is that everyone works together. Without countries like Cuba and Iraq getting their turn on committees we would basically have a democratic union, with lots of rogue states. It's better to be inclusive, and to hope that you can change the way countries work. (Although sometimes that's showing a level of optimism which can't really be justified)

It's worth pointing out that the US has been a representative of human rights for a long time, until two years ago when they were voted off the human rights board because of Camp X-Ray. Also, Amnesty International campaigned for the end of human rights abuses in the US in 2000. Each year they pick a country with a poor record on human rights...

Basically, in the past the US has shown a total willingness to look after it's own, and to not care about civilian casualties, or any other kind of foreigner. So I don't trust the US to be the "world leader". And I'm not alone.

How will G Dubba deal with the next big threat to his regime,- North Korea-, Aleast they have admitted that they have a weapon of mass destruction.

Can't see Dubba doing much really. Whats in for them (america)?. Nothing !. South Korea will have to live with the imitimatation that its northern Neighbor will have on it.

Secondly Korea posses and actual threat to America having a Military force excedding a few Toyota Hilux's carring 10 men armed with Kalshnovkoffs.

But no doubt, the white house will make up some lies to make you (Americans) feel at ease about that threat.

Dubba has'nt got me fooled I know he's a gorrila in a man suit.

Dom your response to not being alone speaks volumes, but not in respect to a majority. If tomorrow the US were to open its immigration to the extent it did during the European exodus. The amount of people trying to get into this country would be enormous and that would not be only from third world countries.

If feel that to say that the UN knew about human
rights abuses in Iraq but put that issue as equal to what
goes on in camp X-ray to be absurd. People there are interrogated in the same way those accused of crimes are interrogated. They are no mass graves in that camp, no meat grinders or limb racks. Are these the human rights violations the UN was aware of and if so why were not the world press reporting
it?

The biggest problem I have with the UN is that its leadership is not chosen (President) by the masses. Which to me seems strange and perhaps the result of concern over which the public in general would actually chose.

As well the potential consequences such vote in general could potentate (which is sad given that after WWII it was the UN whose responsibility it was to make things different. Furthermore my impression is, in respect to the role of the UN president as being more of a press secretary that an actual leader.

Why you may feel that trusting the US is a mistake, my impression is the real problem would be to place confidence in an organization akin to the UN in form (while in substance that may be a different story).

Keep in mind Dom that when you say the US takes care of its own, by clear definition its own is a representation of every country in the world.

And despite the inclination of some with respect to the
US not understanding the needs of other cultures it is clearly apparent that this is not correct (Dom understand that I am stating how I feel and trying not to imply hostility in my words).

The "System of governing" that operates in this country is geared inherently to meeting the needs of a culturally diverse society. In no other country in the world is such a cultural diversification evident and to be honest the cause of that is by design.