US plans attack on Iraq: what do ya'll think?

[Dutchy]

There seems to be quite a difference between the US and Europe as for attacking Iraq. Or between quite a large part of the world, actually.

Is Saddam Hoessein really that dangerous? Will he, in let's say 3 years from now, have a mass destruction weapon if the US won't interfere? Won't that weapon be developed with Hoessein being eliminated anyway? What will be the consequences of an Iraq war on the world?

I myself am not sure. I can image that weapon being a serious threat, on the other hand I can't judge the impact of a war.

I'm curious what you guys here think of this.

[JediBoricua]

It would be a big mistake. Big mistake. Political and military.

W's approvance rating is down to 60% right now, from more than 90% after 9/11. The only moderate in his gabinet, Powell, is not in favor of an attack without intl. support. He has publicly announced he will resign in 2005, and an attack on Irak can make him move that date a lot earlier. With Powell gone Bush would loose much of the moderate and independent vote that does not agree with his hard-line approach.

On the other, they are talking of taking down Saddam, it's not merely a war on the desert like in Desert Storm. We are talking here that after months of air bombardment and other operations, an occupation army will have to invade Baghdad, possibly engage in a guerrilla warfare with Saddam's Republican Guard, and potentially suffer a high casualty rate. After that is done then a new government must be set up and the US forces will have to stay there for more than 10 years keeping order. The US is not having much luck controlling the population in Afghanistan (an attempt on the president's life occured just this week), and there is not indication that Irak will be easier or simpler. Not only will the cost of life, but the cost of this war will be exhorbitant. Without allied support from the Saudis and the Jordans, the base of operations will have to be Turkey, if they agree that is. Or they will have to do it all from Carriers and land an army the old-fashioned way. We are talking over 100 billion dollars easily. The economy has not bounced as expected, and a double dip recession is not out of the picture. It is an electoral year in Congress, this scenario will cost the House to the GOP and add more Dems to the Senate.

And what is worse, the Arab Nations said this week that they will stick with Irak if the US attacks without providing undeniable evidence of a mass destruction weaponry being developed. We are talking that all the moderates in the regions that mildly support the US, will publicly denounce the US and aid Irak. This is a conflict of mass proportotions.

Irak says they will accept a new batch of UN inspectors, and that they will have access to anywhere anytime. That is the only option, and if they encounter as much as a closed door, then and only then will the US have a legitimate argument for an attack. Bush has a speech at the UN on the 12th this week where he says he will present evidence of Saddam's weapon production, we will have to wait and see...

[dbn]

I agree with we have to wait and see. I would like to see the evidence, before I comment to a Yah or Nah on attack Iraq.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am personally against it because of the reason you just stated Boricua, but its starting to look like we will if I like it or not.

[Jedieb]

Again with this topic? Ughh....

Honestly, this is a great topic Dutchy. We had a long thread covering this very subject just recently. I'm waay to busy to weigh in right now, but to quickly sum up my position;

Saddam is a scumbag.
Call me naive, but I don't believe George W. is wagging a "Wag the Dog" invasion. Mind you, I didn't vote for the man, I just want to believe very badly that he would not risk so many lives just to improve his approval rating and help his reelection chances.
Internation support for attack is weak.
Invasion and removal of Saddam is well within U.S. capabilities, but the lack of a solid coalition will make the invasion more costly in terms of both money ($60-$80B) and lives (This time, U.S. casualties could be in the low thousands instead of the hundreds.)
I don't think we should go in unless a coalition similiar to that of Desert Storm's can be assembled and that seems unlikely.

That about covers it. Gotta go.

[JonathanLB]

I support an attack on Iraq, absolutely, I think we need to finish what we started. However, I at least think that we should seek international support and show them the evidence that we apparently have, and I also think that we could work with the UN and tell Iraq that they MUST let our weapons inspectors into the country, UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to EVERY SINGLE building we want. EVERY one of them. If not, then we will use force and inspect their entire country with laser-guided missiles. Very simple options here: 1) Let us in or 2) Be destroyed. I don't see the difficulty they are having in understanding that.

If the rest of the world doesn't think that Iraq is a threat, then the rest of the world is full of crap and on drugs. We will protect our own interests, and it's not anyone else's business because these guys are a threat to the UNITED STATES, and we will take care of threats to our nation whether or not the rest of the world likes it. That's irrelevant.

I would like to build international support first, though, that SHOULD be done IF possible. If the rest of the world is going to be complacent and wait for 9/11 TWO * 10, then fine, we are going to have to ignore them and do it our way.

[Rinoa Heartilly]

the problem (or not...) with the US is that it can damn near do whatever the hell it wants, with or without international aproval, but it makes people hate us even more...:lol

I dunno if we should really go after Iraq...it's not like Saddam has got nukes cranked up ready to incinerate Florida...plus, the economy is still screwed, and it'll spark riots, car-bombs, and terrorist attacks in other places...

[ReaperFett]

One day though, someone will actually put sanctions on the US. IMO, that's partially why noone wants to help. The US wants the UN to do something, but when does the US do what the UN tells them?


I dont know if the timing is right, but something has to be done eventually.

[JonathanLB]

One of the only other REASONABLE countries on Earth, Britain, supports our actions, so who cares what these pacificists think in other countries?

We CAN do whatever we want, and there never will be any restrictions because this isn't a dictatorship bent on world domination, it is a democracy of reasonable people who don't wish harm on innocent people, like say the French (no matter how silly those frogs may be, haha). Of course, sometimes there is collateral damage (good movie, hehe), but, eh, oh well.

International support?! Haha, it's not "support." It just would be nice to have some approval, but the support hardly matters. The other militaries just confuse the whole issue with their outdated technology and bad languages, LOL. Haha, j/k. But seriously you never know when you by accident might drop a few bombs on French forces trying to "help out." I mean, it's hard enough coordinating an attack with just your own army, let alone 5, 6, or 7.

About the only way I see the world being safe from terrorism is if we no longer needed gas and just used electric or hydro powered cars and then all of the sudden this horrible earthquake just SUNK all of the Middle East clean into the ocean. What a tragic loss that'd be. I'm sure everyone would be mourning for many seconds, maybe even a minute.

LOL, I'm just kidding. I'm sure there are 5 or 6 good people in that area. :)

[jjwr]

I would like to see something done about Saddam but this isn't the way to do it. Bush IMO is a idiot, he doesn't seem to have much of a clue about International Politics. Don't piss everyone off just so you can be the guy to take down Saddam.

Wait for support or do it right, put a ton of pressure on Iraq to get inspectors, etc all over that place and let the world see whats there, if they refuse then maybe the others will realize whats going on in there.

[JediBoricua]

Precisely JJWR. I'm quoting Eb when I say that Saddam is a major scumbag, but is he worth billions of dollar of public money spent? For what? So then you'll need to set up a new government, and stabilize a country in a region that has not been stable since what? The 900? Don't think so.

[JonathanLB]

The money that Iraq makes off oil can support their own reconstruction after we rip them a new A hole.

Bush is doing a great job and anyone who thinks we should ignore a country as dangerous as Iraq, well, THEY are the idiots.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Jon, its going to cost money probably 100 billion dollars to do the war, especially since no other country will help pay for it, so who pays for? We do it and I don't like paying money for that, and I think in the end Bush will be forced to raise taxes and it will get him the boot in 2004.

[ReaperFett]

One of the only other REASONABLE countries on Earth, Britain, supports our actions, so who cares what these pacificists think in other countries?
No, Tony Blair does. He would also jump of a cliff is Bush asked him to.



Apparently, 60% of people in the US think now isn't the time to strike at Iraq.

[Sejah Haversh]

We need evidence, we need a solid base on which to lauch an attack from befroe we can do so.

Bush has been a good president, and I approve of most of the things he has done. But, I don't understand why he is feelign so trigger happy at the moment. We need to wait for a reason to attack that other neations will understand. If we were to uncover plans for biological weapons, and missle trackign systems, then I say go in and take it out.

In doing that, we can look for other solid reasons to attack, and proceed from there. I don't want us makign them up, though, or goign on hunches. We need to have honsest evidence before we can attack. But when we do attack, I say we take out the entire threat, that way we can look back at the UN and say, okay, wee took out Iraq, now where ELSE would you like us to be a Global Police Force for you? Where else can we take the blame of you dragging your feet?

[Loki Ahmrah]

No, Tony Blair does. He would also jump of a cliff is Bush asked him to.

Hear hear! Who would believe it? George Michael was absolutely right. "Good puppy! Good puppy!"

Having said that, I think I agree with Bush and I've only just changed my mind in favour of what he is planning. Why? Because I am thinking: "Why the hell should we have to put up with little pricks like Sadam Hussain causing all kinds of problems?" Answer: We shouldn't. Zero tolerance is the only way to bring an end to terrorism and other dissidents such as Hussain. They'll crap themselves once the rest of the world realises they're sick of their s**t.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well if we are going to take that attitude what about North Korea? To me they are bigger threat than Iraq is right now, they have nukes and could use them, especially if some crazy got in power. Why don't we attack them. Hmm is it because there is nothing there and there is oil in Iraq or is it because we are afraid North Korea might use them if we attacked them (I am thinking the latter). I would rather use diplomacy with North Korea, but why can't we do that with Iraq, why don't we give them ultimative instead? I think it would be a huge mistake to go in this alone.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
No, Tony Blair does. He would also jump of a cliff is Bush asked him to.



Apparently, 60% of people in the US think now isn't the time to strike at Iraq.

You've got your numbers inverted. According to a CNN gallup poll I saw on TV today, ~60% (+1 or -2) of the U.S. people polled believe that we should go to Iraq. That's up 3% from August, but way down from november 2001, when it was in the 70s or maybe up to 90, I don't remember. It's never gone below 55%, and certainly not down to 40%.

I'm going to have to agree with Dick Cheney on weapons inspectors. Desultory at best. In the past, when U.N. weapons inspectors would come across a weapon that needed to be cataloged and destroyed, the Iraqi armed forces would physically hold the inspectors back at gunpoint while the weapons were loaded onto trucks (right in front of the inspectors) and relocated to sites which weren't being inspected that day.

Iraq is not a big country, but it's plenty big enough for Saddam to hide an arsenal. Hospitals, latrines, orphanages, no place is too sacred to have a SCUD hidden in it. General Patton gave the order back in early WWII to hide the vehicles and equipment for a full armored division in the desert in the southwest just in case the Nipponese invaded, and that division has been lost since then, so it has happened before.

History will thank the U.S. and the U.K. for going ahead with this type of invasion and liberating Iraq by eradicating the bejesus out of Saddam. This isn't the Falklands or the abortive war for the Suez Canal. We have righteousness on our side.

[ReaperFett]

You've got your numbers inverted. According to a CNN gallup poll I saw on TV today, ~60% (+1 or -2) of the U.S. people polled believe that we should go to Iraq
BBC Worldwide definately said what I said. Wether they polled it differently is another thing.


History will thank the U.S. and the U.K. for going ahead with....

This isn't the Falklands or the abortive war for the Suez Canal
You give with one hand, you take with another.

[Jedieb]

Here are the USA/CNN/Gallop Poll numbers for the last few months:

2002 Aug 19-21
Favor 53
Oppose 41
No Opinion 6

2002 Jun 17-19
Favor 61
Oppose 31
No Opinion 8

2001 Nov 26-27
Favor 74
Oppose 20
No Opinion 6

2001 Feb 19-21
Favor 52
Oppose 42
No Opinion 6


The numbers have been steadily dropping. You can bet the numbers will rise again these next few days when the memories of 9-11 are revisited. But I think it's a safe bet that unless the administration can produce direct evidence of Iraqi support for terroism or production of weapons of mass destruction that the numbers will continue to fall as the months progress.

[JonathanLB]

The very poll numbers you just showed clearly indicated that there always has been support for us going into Iraq among our own people, and that will not change. Even if it dropped a few points, which I doubt, then it would still be largely in favor.

I agree that history will thank us later and prove us right. The rest of the world, eh, morons. Let 'em say what they want.

[ReaperFett]

I agree that history will thank us later and prove us right. The rest of the world, eh, morons. Let 'em say what they want.
And let them do what they want. Yeah?

[Jedieb]

In just over 9 months the numbers dropped over 21 points. The 74% high was a direct result of 9-11. You can bet that by the end of the year those numbers will be in the 50's and not much higher, which means that you'll have around 40% of Americans NOT in favor of an invasion. But the more important issue is that the opposition in the international community will be even greater. And again, for the umpteenth time, without international cooperation this invasion should not take place. There's a reason why men like Colin Powell aren't all gung ho to launch this invasion. If the adminstration can produce the evidence and muster the support, fine, but as it stands right now, they haven't done either. This isn't a game of friggin' Stratego. You just don't send over a few hundred thousand troops and expect everything to go nice and easy like it did before. Especially if the support you had back in 90, is nowhere to be found.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you Jedieb, I think it would be a huge mistake. One major thing you would have to realize is what it would do to middle east. It is possible it could explode there, a couple regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) could fall and islamic fundamlitists could take power and we would be in bigger trouble than. We will also have more sucidal bombers, and most of the world will see us as the bad guys, do we want that perception? I think we wait and try to get inspectors in again and if Iraq refuses than we have a better case and we might get better support.

[Dutchy]

Jonathan, didn't you a while ago say that you'd never be a soldier and fight for your country in some foreign country?

Thanks for all the reactions so far. I've read them with interest.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I]'m against this big time. I have lost faith in the leadership of my own country to act with anything other than a lapdog of the USA and that sucks. Until the USA gives the aussies in Guatanamo bay a free and fair trial for crimes they are supposed to of committed (What crimes? No charges and one of them wasnt even in Afganastan!) I dont believe any of this retoric coming from the war mongers. That's all they are, war mongers.

To go to war is a bad, bad move. Listen, Al-Quada is a religious loony group. Saddan Hussein has only one person he gives a hoot about - himself. That's all he cares about. He's no threat to the USA and simply put, if the Israelis felt threatened, they are more than capable of offing him.

So tell me, why are the USA so keen that Iraq comply with UN resolutions, when the Israelis defy the same UN and refuse to comply with resolutions? I hate this type of double standard. You either say all comply, or all dont, not pick and choose cause one is an ally.

Finally, lets see this "proof" Hussein is a clear and present threat to anyone outside his borders. Well? Is there any? If there is, I might think differently. But until that time, invading a soverign nation is not on. This whole Middle East situation is blatant hypcracy and until the Israelis are told to stop their persecution of Palestinians, there should be NO Iraq invasion.

Why are Palestinians blowing themselves up? Cause they are terrorists and nuts? No, cause their families are starving and they have no jobs and no future and no one is listening to their plight. It seems to them that the only way they can get attention is walking onto buses and blwoign themselves up!

What's wrong with that picture?

Until the USA begins to treat all in this equal and begins to treat the jailed so called terrists as humans with rights (only when they are proven guilty of terrorism, should they be declared animals and locked away forever in a 2 * 4 cage), only when Israel is bought back to heel, only then does Bush have the moral highground to call military strikes on Hussein.

Man, I wish we in Australia had elected someone with the balls to think for themselves, instead of parroting the USA line.

[Sene Unty]

I think Attacking Saddam would be a mistake. I agree with Marcus in that Saddam only cares about himself. I also believe in the idea that we need international support. I am sick and tired of my country only caring about itself. What happens when a world meeting happens where all our allies send diplomatic leaders? Who do we send? We send Powell because Bush doesn't want to lend support to an international effort to curb starvation in third-world countries. Powell was booed because of it. The only person with any brain in their head in Bush's administration is Powell. He doesn't think we should go in because it would be us going against practically everyone else. I agree whole heartedly. Oh and has anyone noticed how we still haven't caught Osama Bin Ladin. Talk about not finishing a job.

[Jedieb]

I think Marcus's post brings up many good points. It's also an indicator of what kind of international resistance the U.S. is facing. But I strongly disagree with his assessment of the situation in Israel. What he calls persecution I call SELF DEFENSE. And those suicide bombers aren't just blowing themselves up, they're trying to take out as many innocent bystanders as possible. There's a reason Palestinians were cheering in the streets when the TWC fell. Those suicide bombers aren't that far removed from the terroists that attacked the U.S.

What Marcus's post illustrates yet again is how complicated the situation in the Middle East is. An invasion of Iraq would not happen in a vacuum. It would effect the entire region and have implications that we can't even begin to imagine. We can't ignore international opinion and how European and Asian nations feel about such an invasion. This is there backyard and they have a say in the matter. It's one thing to ignore a lone French voice of dissent, but quite another to tell dozens of allies and or nations that they should just shut up and get out of our way.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Here are the USA/CNN/Gallop Poll numbers for the last few months:

2002 Aug 19-21
Favor 53
Oppose 41
No Opinion 6

2002 Jun 17-19
Favor 61
Oppose 31
No Opinion 8

2001 Nov 26-27
Favor 74
Oppose 20
No Opinion 6

2001 Feb 19-21
Favor 52
Oppose 42
No Opinion 6


The numbers have been steadily dropping. You can bet the numbers will rise again these next few days when the memories of 9-11 are revisited. But I think it's a safe bet that unless the administration can produce direct evidence of Iraqi support for terroism or production of weapons of mass destruction that the numbers will continue to fall as the months progress.


You forgot the latest gallop poll, which was taken a few days ago and shows 58% in favor of taking Iraq.

@Fett

No, I don't. The Falklands and the suez canal were idiotic wars which were fought because Britain didn't want Argentina and Egypt to think that just because they've given away every other part of their empire that their territory is free pickings. Falklands, you have Margaret Thatcher fighting for....sheep, apparently. Suez Canal, you have H.M. armed forces, in conjunction with the French and the Israelis fighting to uphold the continuation of the last few years of a 100 year lease on the canal. Not worthwhile wars, but in fact just wars over mounds of dirt. Why do you think the U.S., the USSR and the rest of the world acted to withdraw the 3 armies? Interestingly, as an indirect result of the Suez Canal, the IDF eviscerated the U.S.S. Liberty before taking the Golan Heights 2 days later.


And in other news, an English think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, has <a href=http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/09/iiss.samore.rodgers.cnna/index.html>ruled</a> in favor of acting fast against Iraq. Nice to know the intellectuals are on the right track, if not the general populous ;)

With regards to our liberation of Iraq, I might quote a certain civilized Germanic barbarian:



...Let other kings desire the glory of battles won, of cities taken, of ruins made; our purpose is, God helping us, so to rule that our subjects shall grieve that they did not earlier acquire the blessing of our dominion.

-Cassiodorus, writing on behalf of King Theodoric the Goth to Unigis the Sword-Bearer, 525 A.D.

[ReaperFett]

The falklands have people. People under our rule. We protect them. Im sorry if you cant understand simple things like working for others, saving lives and the like, but that isn't my problem.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
....We protect them. Im sorry if you cant understand simple things like working for others, saving lives and the like, but that isn't my problem.

I might make the same argument against a person who believes we shouldn't go to Iraq, help out the Kurds and the Shiites.

[ReaperFett]

Which isnt me

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't quote a barbarian King on war that is like quoting Attilla the Hun on pillaging we know what they are going to say.

[Jedieb]

Hey, after we liberate the Kurds and Shiites, can someone tell me when we're scheduling the invasions of;

Cuba
China
North Korea
Russia ('cuz we gots to do something about Chechnya)
Argentina
Belize
Bolivia
Guyana
Brazil
Chile
Angola
Burundi
Central Africa Republic
Chad
Democratic Republic of Congo
Guinea
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Uganda
Macedonia
Nepal

I'm really excited about the Cuba invasion. It'll be great for my parents to finally be able to visit their homeland. China's going to be tough, and may bring about a 3rd World War, but we've got to stop these human rights violations with invasions and regime changes. It's the only way!

International Support
U.S. interests at stake
A clear and concise mission with a forseable conclusion

The Powell Doctrine makes sense. I don't want American forces inserted into any area in large numbers unless those conditions can be met. When the Bush administration gets all of those met, then fine. The reality of foreign policy and what it should be are two very different things. They always have been and they always will be.

[ReaperFett]

eb, mised Zimbabwe :)

[Jedieb]

Damn Z's!!!

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I wouldn't quote a barbarian King on war that is like quoting Attilla the Hun on pillaging we know what they are going to say.

He wasn't really a barbarian king. He was educated in Constantinople, and was trying to put up a replacement empire with the same ideals as the Romans, only 30 years after Romulus was killed. For that, lots of other barbarian tribes tried to knock him out. This is the guy who destroyed Odoacer, remember. Theodoric the Goth=good Goth.

[Rinoa Heartilly]

Hah, Lil' Bush is just trying to go and finish what his father never got to do...why, I have no god-damn idea...

[JMonk]

All of you people insulting Bush with the typical insults (he's stupid) are way ahead of yourselves on bashing Bush for attacking Iraq. He hasn't done that yet. He hasn't attacked Iraq without a coalition yet. He hasn't attacked Iraq without UN approval yet. He hasn't attacked Iraq without giving a final ultimatum yet. So the criticism of attacking Iraq without these things happening is premature.

The point of view that says that the US cannot and should not attack Iraq without other Middle Eastern countries and Iraq's neighbor's supporting such an attack is mind-boggling. So if the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey etc. say that they do not support the US attacking Iraq, that means that we can't. Which in turn means that the US cannot protect itself and its citizenry unless the leader of Turkey says it can. Do all of you not see a problem with this? The government of the United States would be abdicating its primary constitutional responsibility of protecting its people to leaders of other countries. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Lastly, if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. The European (and evidently Australian) practice of appeasing tyrannical leaders does not and has not worked. Saddam has been appeased for over a decade. He kicked inspectors out for good in 1998. That was four years ago. In 1998, President Clinton and all of his democrat buddies (Daschle, Kerry, etc.) supported action against Iraq without asking for proof, a coalition or a national debate. The Senate passed a resolution allowing Clinton do to anything needed, including the use of military force, to stop the very real threat to the US by Saddam. Now Clinton, Daschle, Kerry, etc. are all against action.

This entire discussion is probably irrelevant anyway. Bush will build a coalition and he will get UN support.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am sorry he won't get UN support because Russia will veto anything in the security council (China and France might do this as well) and there are a lot of nations, Germany, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and Syria that have all come hard against any action, the German Chancellor has been the most harsh, IMO. So I don't see a coalition happening, besides maybe Britain, and Turkey might (they haven't said yet) let us use there land, but I doubt they will send in troops. And if they don't what do you say doing conquering Saudia Arabia or Turkey? Just to secure our interst, to me that would be as bad as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union who did similar things to put there brand of morality on others. Now I guess we could send air craft carriers in and land troops off ships, but that would be expensive and I expect higher casualites from that, just look back at Normandy and how many died there it would be similar though probably lesser casualities than that.

[Sene Unty]

I too would be interested by a liberation of Cuba.....but it will never happen. America has no real interest in Cuba anymore. Hell the only reason we cared before was the fact that the Soviets had put nukes there.

[JediBoricua]

Of course US needs the approval of other countries to attack Irak. If a crisis exploded in the Middle East as a result of an invasion, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and all the other nations that are currently against a US military intervention will be affected the most. You say the US has to defend its people from what it considers a threat, so if another country considers the US a threat they have to 'defend' their people by unilaterally and unprovokinly attacking the continental United States? What is fair is fair, no?

I don't think any of us here would be against an invasion if it were proven that Irak has or is close to having a nuclear bomb. The rest of the world will also be in favor of that, but right now Bush is talking of going in, and taking Saddam down because he feels he is a threat. I am not convinced, neither is the world. Let's see what Bush has to say thursday at the UN. Sadly, I believe he will attack no matter what the world tells him back.

[Jedieb]

I can think of a few hundred thousand Cubans in South Florida that would say we have interests in Cuba. Plus, it's still only 90 miles away. But, outside of that vocal group, most Americans see the U.S. embargo against Cuba as ineffective and damaging to the Cuban people. I understand BOTH sides of the issue. You really have no idea how much the exile community loathes Castro. Nothing but his death and/or removal will satisfy them. His time will come and I see Cuba's failed attempt at communisn finally ending when his personal power is no longer there to keep it in place.

[Sene Unty]

Err... While I agree with practically everything you have said....I must disagree with one. I believe I do know how much the exile communtiy loathes Castro. My girlfriend's family are all exiles from Cuba. While to many my tie to this family may not seem significant, but to me they are like my blood. Her father was imprisoned for over ten years of his life in Cuba as a political prisoner. I know the hardship they suffer everyday. I also live in Miami and know how much the Cuban people strife for change. When I said that comment about America not caring I meant the government not the people.

[JediBoricua]

I have a theory about what will happen to Cuba. Currently my grandfather and my dad are investing some money there, they are developing an instalation of over 200 greenhouses, massive greenhouses, to grow tomatoes and beans. The government will buy the 100% of the production and will provide the labor. What do I mean by this? My dad and my grandfather are both american citizens but they are allowed, both by the Federal Dpt. of Agriculture and the Federal Treasury and by the Cuban Gov. to invest and develop a PRIVATE project in the Free Trade zone of La Habana.

This embargo is nothing but paper, in practice it is inefficient and ceased working over 10 years ago. My grandfather says that a year after the Nov. election in Florida and Jeb Bush wins over Janet Reno (he needs the cuban vote to revalidate), Castro will retire, leave the island with a contract for his memoir of over 8 million dollars, and lend the government to his brother who will promptly call for open elections, supported by the US, and thus elect a new government, that will be socialist in constitution, but as capitalist as the US in practice.

I know it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, but tell that to my dad who has a booth in the upcoming Cuban Agricultural Fair who is composed only of american products being sold in the Cuban Market.

[Jedieb]

So I see that you're familiar with the exile community and their viewpoints Sene. Most people really have no idea. That provides an objectivity that most Cubans lack, but robs them of insight into countless examples of what Castro has done to his people during his reign. Outside of South Florida, the Cuban community doesn't have the political clout to make Castro a top priority. They've been effective in keeping the embargo in place, but they can't get much more than that done. Living in Miami you know what I'm talking about. But outside of Florida, most people think we're just picking on a small nation and hurting their people.

Boricua, that's the first I've heard of that. I don't doubt the Trade projects you described, but there's no way the bearded one is leaving that island unless Death himself carries him away. Of that I'm certain.

[JMK]

...but there's no way the bearded one is leaving that island unless Death himself carries him away. Of that I'm certain. George Lucas lives on an island???

Oh wait, he's the flanneled one. Sorry.;)



:p :D

Carry on.

[ReaperFett]

lol :)



Now Clinton, Daschle, Kerry, etc. are all against action.
Clinton agreed with Blair about Iraq, which means he isnt 100% against.

[JMonk]

Jedi Master Carr,

Comparing the US to Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Is the US talking about conquering and colonizing Iraqi territory or are we talking about deposing the Iraqi leader and turning the country over to the Iraqi people? How many countries did Hitler conquer because of the threat to the German people and then turn over control to the people? Can you name one? Are we talking about going into Iraq and gassing 6 million people because of their religion? Of course not, and to even imply a similarity between Nazi Germany and this situation is absurd.

Everyone seems to be assuming that Bush is going to attack Iraq no matter what, that he will have no coalition and no support. This will simply not be the case. Many of you are mad at the US for things you THINK Bush will do. Guess what? He hasn't done any of them yet.

He is going before the UN Thursday. What he will say we will have to wait and see. My best guess is that Saddam will be given one more ultimatum. Saddam will accept then violate the conditions or not accept the conditions at all. His actions depend on how much he values his life and the life of his "government". This will give the rest of the world its "smoking gun" , and the coalition will be formed and with UN support UN forces (AKA US Military) will invade Iraq, Saddam will fall and democracy and freedom will be introduced to the Iraqi people. And do you know what? They will love it. All people are born free and given the choice will choose freedom. Freedom is not an imposition.

[Idolon Mortiferus]

IMO, the only reason Dubya's interested in Iraq is cos of the oil there. theres LOADS of countries under dictatorships, many with pretty damn scary millitary forces. may of them dont like America.
but Hussein hasnt done anything recently. this is just a war being waged to boost Dubya's ego, and to try to cowe everyone who opposes him into submission.
And yes, tony Blair IS severely suckin up to Bush. It makes me cringe when i see him agree dumbly with Bush. I am English, i willalways be English, but its at times like this im almost embarrassed to be considered part of the same group as Tony "Ar5e-Licker" Blair.
and "Freedom"? of course the Iraqui people wont get freedom. itll be like what happened in afghanistan. america gets rid of the yrant they hate for the tyrant they prefer.

thats my 10 sterling pennies, old money ^~

[Marcus Telcontar]

Saddam will fall and democracy and freedom will be introduced to the Iraqi people. And do you know what? They will love it. All people are born free and given the choice will choose freedom. Freedom is not an imposition.

/cynical mode on

Freedom is only defined by the USA, right? Bloody hell, pull your head out of your backside - all men really want is to live in peace and have food and shelter for their families. Do that and you could have dictactor and they wont give a hoot how the leader came about! Democracy is not the cure all for evil. You want happy Iraqis? Fed em, give them shelter and medicine, give them peace and jobs. Do that to Plaestine as well. AFAIK, democracy is no better at times than Communism. Democracy has promoted the prasites called politicians and lobbyists who dont give a damn about you or I. I'd rather have a leader who cared for his people, than the self absorbed monkeys we have chattering in the walls of power now.

That is the lesson of history we should all learn. Hitler arose cause he promised to get his people out of poverty and he did.

[Darth23]

So how IS the Democratic Republic of Kuwait these days, anyway?

:p

[Marcus Telcontar]

So how IS the Democratic Republic of Kuwait these days, anyway?

Government type: nominal constitutional monarchy

elections: none; the monarch is hereditary; prime minister and deputy prime ministers appointed by the monarch

Source : http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ku.html

[Jedi Master Carr]

I didn't say by invading Iraq we be like Nazi Germany but if we invaded other countries to get to Iraq sort of like saying we know what is best for you that we would look like Germany, maybe I wrote it kind of wrong, but that is what I meant.
Also, I am sick of this crap about Democracy in the Middle East that is all I hear on the news, it doesn't work there, if you allow Saudia Arabia or Egypt to vote the people will elect some Islamic fundamelitist that would be 100 times worst than who is power now, and don't say that I am guessing it already happened in Algeria before the military siezed power (pushed by the US and NATO) and if it happened in Iraq you would see the same thing. Democracy is not perfect, unfortunently a evil came come out (Hitler and Napoleon both siezed power through democracies) I personally would like to see the Status Quo in the middle east, if Saddam got killed it wouldn't bother me just put a king in charge or some western dictator that is fine with me.

[Rinoa Heartilly]

JMC...Use periods...:lol...naw, I'm jk...

Anyways, I think that Bush is was over-reacting about this. The only way that Iraq will ever nuke us (if they actually have any...) is if we piss Saddam off...If we don't invade, then he probably won't be mad. And, if it was our objective to just take out the government, then why don't we take out the members?

Personally, I don't see why we need B-1Bs to kill a dictator...

[imported_Lance Stormrider]

Mhm...I don't know when you have such an insane mind like Saddam there is not guarantee there. ANything can happen ><

[JMonk]

All people want is food and shelter and medicine? Who's head is in who's backside? (real appropriate response by the way) The colonizers of North America had food and shelter and medicine, and guess what, we fought a WAR to free ourselves, to be able to participate in our OWN government, to have the FREEDOM to govern ourselves. People in prison have food, shelter and medicine (and even jobs and peace). I don't see people lining up to move in. Extreme example I realize, but don't tell me all people want is a roof, a job, some Tylenol and a meal. If you actually believe this, instead of just typing what you would like to be true to support your argument, then I am glad we don't agree.

Look, nobody is going to change anybody's mind. I see the points many of you are making. Nobody likes war (that's right, not even the Great Satan America). There is no easy answer. However, this process is just getting started. We will know more and more as time goes on. I'm willing to give the government the time to makes its case. That case seems to have already been made to most Americans according to poll numbers.


Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Good day.

[Sene Unty]

Thanks Jedieb for recognizing me as someone who is aware of the situation in Miami. :D

I do not believe that the embargo is effective. I think it hurts no one but the people in Cuba. It sure as hell doesn't hurt Castro. If it did he would have left a long time ago. I just hope the man dies soon. Man the parties that would go on down here would be amazing. Streets would shut down. People would leap from their cars hugging everyone in sight. It would be beautiful.........

[ReaperFett]

It's a bit like the sanctions on Iraq. Aid struggles to get through to the people, but Saddam managed to get the parts needed for a Ferris Wheel.

[Wei Wu Wei]

we fought a WAR to free ourselves, to be able to participate in our OWN government, to have the FREEDOM to govern ourselves

Uh, no. Americans fought the revolutionary war over taxes. Becuase at first, Britain forgot about it's American colonies, and then suddenly remembered them. People Actually living in Britain at the time paid much higher taxes than Americans in the colonies did. We fought the war as a means to avoid our responsibility to our government, which at the time was Britian. AMericans then, like they are now, were all spoiled brats. I for one am disgusted to be an American.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well thats true Taxes were one of the main reasons for the American Revolution. Also I completly disagree with you about Food there is a lot of places that is all they want. There are parts of the world (Bangledesh, 1/3 of Africa, India) where people are starving as we speak and they would love food, and shelter, believe me you can't eat freedom.

[JMK]

believe me you can't eat freedom.

Wow, good line. That should be in print somewhere!

[Wei Wu Wei]

It is. on this website. The world is getting to be a messed up place, even more so than it usually is...

[JediBoricua]

I agree with Marcus on the food and shelter issue. I have the situation of my country as an example. Before the 1950's Puerto Rico was the poorest country in the Americas, worse that Haiti. After some reforms, a new constitution and a great leadership we got industrialized, our people worked and studied and today, although we have close to a million people leaving under the poverty line, no one here dies of hunger, or has no shelter etc. Before the 50's revolts were a common thing, the 'macheteros' and the Nationalist party had constant skirmishes with the federal guards, a group of them attempted to kill Pres. Truman and another smuggled a Machine Gun into Congress and fired at the Legislators, crippling one Representative for life. All this under US regime.

Today we are still under US regime, but there has not any major violence against the US for over 50 years. Why? People here have a future. I for one would hope that one day my country will be independent and be free to make it's own policies, but sadly the majority of the population does not see it that way, because we have everything we need to live a 'normal' life.

In the Dominican Republic the populace supported for over 30 years the worst dictator you could ever imagine, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo. Just because they had jobs.

It is reality, most people think with their stomachs, and I am not one to blame them.

[ReaperFett]

Well, Bush has basically threatened the UN, and is already moving troops out. Funny really, the UK hasn't even recaleld Parliment to debate it yet.

[Sene Unty]

He's doing what?!?!?!?!?!


I hate that man!!!!!!!!

[ReaperFett]

To Qatar I believe

[Sene Unty]

The man as no interest in international affairs. He does what ever the hell he wants, whenever he wants to do it. I can't believe this crap. How dare he threaten the UN! Who the hell does he think he is?

[Bette Davis]

Please don't misrepresent my country, Fett. There are troops from FL being moved out to Qatar, but it is part of a military exercise IIRC that has been held in Qatar biennially since 1990.

Basically my understanding of the situation is: Iraq complys with CURRENT UN demands against is (i.e. showing arms inspectors that they are NOT developing weapons of mass destruction as they have been sanctioned NOT TO, etc etc.) or else action will have to be taken against them.

When I tell my niece not to do something, or else I'm going to send her to her room...and she does it anyway...what choice do I have? I *have* to send her to her room, even if her brothers all tell me not to. Other wise she won't respect me, and will continue to be rebellious and disrupt the household.

Iraq is in the same position. They've known since the end of the Gulf War that they are to comply with the UN's wishes. Have they? We have no idea. Once we find out, appropriate action will be taken. And the "we" I use is the international UN "we."

Frankly, no offense Viscera, but the thought of a united Iran/Irag scares me to death. I know nothing I say here has any affect on foreign policy, or whathaveyou, but the outlooks I've seen in this thread are startling and scary at times. Its an eye opener to see how people around the world feel about this issue.

Sadaam is bad. We all know he is. Sadaam is/could be/we really don't know because arms inspectors can never get a good look at anything/might be developing weapons of mass destruction, when specifically instructed BY THE UN (the international community as a whole, mind you) not to. The US points out that nothing is being done, and that SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE, and you all turn your backs on us? Gee thanks a lot.

[Bette Davis]

"threaten the UN?" Hardly.

[Sene Unty]

What do you mean "Turn your backs on us"?

[ReaperFett]

I was saying what the radio said, no more. Im sure Qatar is too far away to be useful

[CMJ]

Fett I watched the speech...he did not threaten the UN. :p

[ReaperFett]

Depends on your definition of a threat I suppose. Im not talking in a "Do as we say or we leave!" style :)


BTW, the House of Commons debate is the 24th.

[CMJ]

Bush laid out the history of the transactions by the Iraqi government. They have ignored 16 UN resolutions in the last 11 years. Bush "challenged"(not threatened) the UN not to become the League of Nations.

As a guy who did not vote for President Bush...I have been rather amazed at his performance in office. Ever since last year on that fateful day he has stepped up to the plate in a big way IMHO. This speech this morning was definitely a B+(if not higher).

[ReaperFett]

You're going to have to tell me what the League of Nations is.


BTW, nice quote :)

[CMJ]

A guy from Great Britain who doesn't know what the League of nations was? I'm shocked.

The League of Nations was formed after WWI to watch over the world and to try and head off another major conflict. Unfortunately the USA did not join(even though President Wilson was the one who came up with the idea) and the group had little real power. It called on Hitler several times to stop building his military, but it had little real bite.

Basically the League was an "all talk" body. THAT is what Bush was accusing the UN of becoming. He basically threw down the gauntlet and told'em "He's been challenging YOUR authority and you do nothing, prove something to him and more importantly to yourselves". Those were my words not his...but that's what the meaning was...most definitely.

Oh...thanks for the compliment on my quote...of course I change it every few weeks, so don't get too attached. ;)

[Doc Milo]

The UN is a joke, IMHO. If it went the way of the League of nations, I wouldn't mind at all...

[ReaperFett]

A guy from Great Britain who doesn't know what the League of nations was? I'm shocked.
Im no ordinary guy. I miss things :)


Thanks for the explanation

[CMJ]

No problem Reaper...I pride myself on being something of a history buff. Even if I'm not to the degree of Carr.

[ReaperFett]

Well, Im more of a trivia man, so I only know the rare things :)


My thing I wonder about is this. What exactly are the military going in to do?

[CMJ]

Well specifically who knows. I'd imagine MAJOR bombing followed up by some sort of finishing ground campaign. The whole thing would be over in a week or two. Saddam isn't NEARLY as strong as he was in '91 and he only lasted about a month then.

[ReaperFett]

WHere my worry comes in though, is what then. Would some incompetant who hasnt had power over a chess club let alone a country take over? Or would one of Saddam's men be brought in?

[CMJ]

Hey that worries me too. Putting up governments has never been one of our best area's of foreign policy.

If we take Hussein out we're looking at LEAST 5-10 years involvement in that country.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The League of Nations, interesting body, like you said the U.S didn't join and they wouldn't allow Germany or the Soviet Union in, hard to see how it would work when 3 of the 5 strongest powers are in it, the thing was doomed because of that alone. I like the UN for what is a talking body where nations can air out there grievences, really the only powerful part of the UN is the Security Council that has all the power, and that is the way it should be. Also as we get into that topic I have might doubts that any security resolution will be passed about Iraq, Russia has said they will veto anything, China has said as much and France well, they like to be Contrary, plus we still have the problem about the Middle East it won't matter if they keep on disagree with us, I still think its a bad idea because of the middle east situation, I would at least wait until we can try to create less tension in Israel.

[Darth Viscera]

edit~double post

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Bette Davis
Frankly, no offense Viscera, but the thought of a united Iran/Irag scares me to death. I know nothing I say here has any affect on foreign policy, or whathaveyou, but the outlooks I've seen in this thread are startling and scary at times. Its an eye opener to see how people around the world feel about this issue.



I don't recall suggesting Iran and Iraq should unite. The gulf between Shiite (Iranian...caucasian) and Sunni (arab) muslims is similiar to the gulf between Catholics and Protestants. Well, in this case, instead of a spanish armada, there's a million dead in each country from border wars. Anyway, they're not uniting.

@Carr
I can say with 90% certainty that, if left to bonafide free elections, Iraq would not elect a religious fundamentalist. This is a very common stereotype.

Ack. All these arguments and counter-arguments leave me wanting to write an essay about the whole thing, but no time. I wish everyone good luck with their America bashing. :rolleyes :lol

Tar and feathers to ya all, ya pack of pundits! :lol :lol

[CMJ]

I don't know Carr...last I heard Russia was on the fence. They have not expressley announced they would veto. They are the crucial country...if they go long with a new resolution, China will abstain and France would most likely join the cause.

It's all about George convincing Putin now.

[Dutchy]

I read this in a Dutch newspaper:


Saddam Hussein is definitely not a friend of religious fanatics like Al Qa'ida. Saddam is a dictator, but he's not the only one in the world. He can make nuclear bombs, but so can Pakistan. At no point in the past 10 years did Iraq attack another country. 10 years ago Bush' father fought a war against Iraq, but he didn't go all the way to put down Saddam. This was because there was no clear democratic opposition that was ready to take over Saddam's power. But has that changed in those 10 years? What reason for Bush sr. to not go through would not count for his son right now?

Curious what people here think of it...

[Sene Unty]

I must commend your knowledge of history. You were right on the mark. Indeed the League of Nations was a joke......just imagine the changes that would have happened in history had the USA joined. Maybe Hitler wouldn't of gone so far.......

I really can't watch Bush make a speach though. He is horrible at it (IMO). He always seems to be reading something of a television promptor. He never sounds natural.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't say France would go along, Chirac has had some harsh words about Iraq almost as harsh as Germany (the German Chancellor has been the harshest critic of them all to this point) As far as Russia, I think it was a foreign minister who said they would veto any council measure about war with Iraq, this last week, he was quoted in the NY Times I believe. China has come out harshly against it but they could abstain, who knows there. I still don't think any bill will make it through the security council, that is just my opinion right now.

Viscera, I don't think that is a stereotype, elections don't work in the middle east, problem is most people are poor and can't read (I am guessing 45-70 % can't read on average in the middle east) and most of the ones who can would vote for the extremists, that is the way it is in Egypt (that is why Muberick(sp) won't allow elections) Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, not certain about Iraq though, not sure if they have the same numbers as the other Arab countries, Saddam may have pushed them out or killed them because of the threat they give to him. I still don't think democracy will ever work in the middle east it just the situation, I am willing to let dictators rule there it is better than a fundamelitist state which could cause havok in the Middle East.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Viscera you might not have. I'm in the middle of reading Tom Clancy's Executive Orders which is WAYYYYY TOOO CLOSE to real life right now.

^_^ I know its just a fictional book, but it sure seems like it could happen. Also, it starts with someone flying a plane into the captitol building in DC and wiping out the government. *shudder* Seems a lot more realistic now, that we know that its possible for things like that to happen.

^_^;

[Sene Unty]

Tom Clancy is the devil. :D

[CMJ]

Sene whose knowledge of history are you commending?

Carr a couple of weeks ago I would have agreed with you. However yesterday the French ambassador to the UN made it seem more like they were on the fence than acouple of weeks ago.

The correspondent in Beijing(from CNN) seemed to have the impression if Russia goes along with the US they will abstain. Like I said...all this was yesterday.

[Sene Unty]

Yours CMJ. You were dead on.....

[CMJ]

Not all Americans are idiots that don't recall or care about history. Though I admit a shockingly high number fit that stereotype.

[Sene Unty]

I concur. Most Americans don't seem to know anything about their own history let alone the Worlds. My English professor was telling us that a person wrote a paper on World War I and described it like this:

"World War I was started when the Nazi's bombed Honolulu."

This is College people...not High School.

[Jedieb]

We fought the war as a means to avoid our responsibility to our government, which at the time was Britian. AMericans then, like they are now, were all spoiled brats. I for one am disgusted to be an American.
huh? You learn in Elementary school; Taxation without representation. The colonists didn't mind paying taxes. They just got tired of paying taxes without having seats in Parliament. When the British tried to recoup some of the expenses for the French and Indian War with the Intolerable Acts and the subsequent Stamp Act the colonies were pushed to war. But the colonists WERE paying taxes.

The League of Nations
It must have broken Wilson's heart. He went to Versailles with such high hopes. I don't think he ever expected Congress to deny him membership in the league he was so instrumental in creating. Then came his stroke and depending on who you believe, he spent the last years of his administration as a shadow president. Without the U.S. the League had no real power. That coupled with European appeasement policies toward Hitler and the world was doomed to have yet another war to end all wars.

Bush's U.N. Address
I wouldn't say that Bush threatened the U.N. I think that he laid out the adminstrations position; Iraq must comply or we will remove Saddam. This is actually a step back from what we've been hearing the last few weeks. I still don't believe that an invasion should take place WITHOUT an international coalition supporting it. The precedent would not bode well for us or the world. Just think of how nervous the Taiwanese are right now. What's to stop China from "reclaiming" their territory if the U.S. launches an invasion of Iraqi without any serious support? Remember, we're talking about the Chinese here. This isn't a human rights friendly government to begin with. Then you have the Russians. How easily could they throw the invasion back in our face whenever they go about settling internal disputes? Neither of these countries would bother quiblling with whether their actions are justified. They may just basically say; 'You ignore international opinion, so can we.'

[CMJ]

LMAO Sene...that is classic! Even if it IS sad.

My favorite moment like that was a debate where a fellow classmate of mine tried quoting from the Constitution, but instead quoted from the Declaration of Independence. She did it TWICE!!

I remember the first time she did it my head snapped around to look at her. The she closed it off misquoting it again saying that "perhaps people that feel this way should reread the Constiitution where it says all people are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

No sooner had she finished saying that when I replied "Perhaps you should reread the Constitution...that statement was in the Declaration of Independence." The entire class stared at me for like 5 seconds and no one said a word. My professor had a HUGE grin on his face though.

I have never been prouder. ;)

[Sene Unty]

LMAO. Thats pretty funny....and kind of cruel of you. :D

I probably would have done the same thing though......:D

I can't stand that kind of ignorance, escpecially when people do it to make a point. Now I'm not trying to say I'm some history genius, but I respect it. I truly believe one can not know what the present is like until you take a look at your past.

[ReaperFett]

Nice job CMJ :)

[Jedieb]

History is one of the most difficult subject to both teach and learn. I can tell you that the cluelessness starts early. Many kids have a difficult time absorbing dates, geography, historical facts, etc.. Most people can't recall more than 3 or 4 presidents from the one currently serving. It's one thing to forget some of the weak 'no name' presidents that led during Reconstruction and the years that followed, but when you can't get Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson straight, then you've just missed out on some of the most important leaders of the 20th century.

Some people just don't get it, and they have no interest in anything except who the finalists on American Idol are.

[CMJ]

Great final line Eb. ;)

Thanks Reaper and Sene for the encouragement. I have a very cruel and analytical mind...don't get in a debate with me. ;)

[Jedieb]

Obscure, irrelevant, useless, and boring historical trivia question that I probably wont be around answer until late Sunday;

Who was the first President of the United States?
(No, it wasn't the guy with the false teeth.)

[ReaperFett]

Dont worry CMJ, I'll only do it if I can win ;)

[ReaperFett]

Hey, going into another tangent, but do you remember the thread about similar we had, where friendly fire was mentioned, and someone said that just happens?

Well, two US pilots were charged with Manslaughter over the 4 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan.


I know it's not in this topic, but just wanted to bring that up :)

[Jedieb]

Exactly, friendly fire happens all the time. Do you think that's the first time USMJ charges have been brought up against soldiers for actions during combat? Levenworth is full of soldiers convicted of similiar offenses. That doesn't change the reality of friendly fire, it's unavoidable and happens in EVERY type of engagement.

[Jedi Master Carr]

About Iraq, Jedieb I agree with you, I don't think we should go in there unless we have some arab support, not every country but at least some of them, as it stands right now we don't have one firmly behind us, Turkey and Kuwait are on the Fence and the rest are really against it. Russia and China, I feel will veto anything dealing with war, though I think you are right China will go which ever way Russia goes. France who knows, its impossible to tell which way they will go. I know which way Germany will go already though Schreoder (sp) is saying he will not support it and will not all German troops to be sent, so we can rule out the largest country in Europe.

Second anybody else worried again about Kashmir? I read today that violence is flaring up, there are still a million troops on each border, war could happen easily. If it does I think it could change things with Iraq (Iraq won't be a problem if they nuke each other) that situation is the most dangerous one in the world right now and I have no clue what can be done to relieve the tension.

Finally that question Jedieb, the first president has to be George Washington right? Unless its a trick question.

[ReaperFett]

Bare in mind that Germany's elections are soon. I doubt he'd dare to go to war right now.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
Uh, no. Americans fought the revolutionary war over taxes. Becuase at first, Britain forgot about it's American colonies, and then suddenly remembered them. People Actually living in Britain at the time paid much higher taxes than Americans in the colonies did. We fought the war as a means to avoid our responsibility to our government, which at the time was Britian. AMericans then, like they are now, were all spoiled brats. I for one am disgusted to be an American.

That is a very immature, very hostile, very ignorant attitude which can partially be rectified if you read a book entitled Rise to Rebellion, by Jeff Shaara. Honestly, I don't know where to start when it comes to correcting the falsehoods that you seem to cling to with such disdain and hostility.

[CMJ]

Wasn't there some sort of lame duck Executive with NO power when the Articles of Confederation were used? That might be who he is refering to.

I'm sure it's SOME sort of trick question.

[ReaperFett]

Ironic you cals what someone else says immature and ignorant after your views on the Falklands Vis.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think the American Revolution is a very complex matter and there are a lot of theories behind it, one that I read as an undergrad was it was partly over the tobacco industry, people like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry had some beef against the British government, I can't remember all of it but some of it sounded plausable. I have read much lately about that theory or any new ones but there are always historians come up with new angles some plausable and other completely off the wall.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Another possibility CMJ, I can't remember was Washington actually called President of the United States when elected? If not than I guess it would be John Adams. Of course it could be exactly what you said, I am not sure what that persons name was though.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Ironic you cals what someone else says immature and ignorant after your views on the Falklands Vis.

My views on the Falklands are fine, Fett. The war would have been averted if the H.M.S. Endurance had just hooked Davidoff up after he purchased that whale slaughterhouse back in '79. Both sides screwed up, and so there was war.

~BTW~I'm guessing you're referring to John Hancock, who was president of the congress from 1775 to October 1777.

[ReaperFett]

And so are the persons you criticised then. You see, that is an OPINION. Your basically slagging off who you want, but defending yourself using opinions. Be consistant.

[CMJ]

I actually considered Hancock to be honest. Of course he was elected before we officially broke away and he stepped down while we were still at war(thus we were "technically" our own country but it was still yet to be determined) so does that even count?

I'm still thinking there was it was a different Executive...but that could be it.

[Doc Milo]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
Uh, no. Americans fought the revolutionary war over taxes. Becuase at first, Britain forgot about it's American colonies, and then suddenly remembered them. People Actually living in Britain at the time paid much higher taxes than Americans in the colonies did. We fought the war as a means to avoid our responsibility to our government, which at the time was Britian. AMericans then, like they are now, were all spoiled brats. I for one am disgusted to be an American.


Darth Viscera:
That is a very immature, very hostile, very ignorant attitude which can partially be rectified if you read a book entitled Rise to Rebellion, by Jeff Shaara. Honestly, I don't know where to start when it comes to correcting the falsehoods that you seem to cling to with such disdain and hostility.

Fortunately, Darth Viscera, I know where to start! All one has to do is read the following to know why we fought the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, I'm sure that Wei Wu Wei must not have read this. Which is a shame. All Americans should:


WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[Dutchy]

I read this in a Dutch newspaper:


Saddam Hussein is definitely not a friend of religious fanatics like Al Qa'ida. Saddam is a dictator, but he's not the only one in the world. He can make nuclear bombs, but so can Pakistan. At no point in the past 10 years did Iraq attack another country. 10 years ago Bush' father fought a war against Iraq, but he didn't go all the way to put down Saddam. This was because there was no clear democratic opposition that was ready to take over Saddam's power. But has that changed in those 10 years? What reason for Bush sr. to not go through would not count for his son right now?

Curious what people here think of it...

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
And so are the persons you criticised then. You see, that is an OPINION. Your basically slagging off who you want, but defending yourself using opinions. Be consistant.

Incorrect. In the U.S., it is is genuine positive knowledge that the U.K. and Argentina made a series of political boo-boos which led up to the Falkland Islands war. Positive knowledge > opinion > impression. Too, my political statements are always backed up by facts. What, you think I don't spend all my free time reading history and current events? I have 2 college history courses to keep up with.

[ReaperFett]

No, you want to know why it happened? It was because Argentina wanted the Falklands. And they still do.

[Darth Viscera]

Duh. Another reason to have exercised more prudence with Davidoff, his 41 argentinian workers, and his argentinian flag. Next time, don't let him in. :lol :lol I mean, the British, the masters of discreet offensive flaggetry, should know better. :lol

[CMJ]

Dutchy, he MAY not be a friend to terrorists(I've heard some circumstantial evidence that says otherwise)...but I don't think that guy would have any problems using a Nuke if he had one.

In fact if I remember right he has said as much. He's shown in the past he has NO issues using chemical weapons on his enemies(whether foreign OR domestic). The guy isn't JUST a dictator. He's a loose cannon in the worst sense of the word.

I do worry about who will be in power after Saddam...and how taking him out might affect the region. I've been drawn to how intelligent the arguments on both sides have been(whether in Congress, on the street, or even here). Alot of people aren't on their normal sides of the fence. I've seen many Democrats on Bush's side...Republicans on the other....some generals on one side...and others taking the opposing view. For once things have not been argued strictly down party lines and that's a joy to see as an American. :D

[Darth Viscera]

And then you have Saddam's quote, which I recall only roughly: "Our nuclear mujahadin will force our enemies back to the Atlantic."

[Rinoa Heartilly]

how do you have a nuclear mujahdin?

[Darth Viscera]

O.o

The same way you have a regular mujahadin. The only difference is that the bombs the mujahadin are carrying are *nuclear*, hence *nuclear* mujahadin.

[Wei Wu Wei]

WEll, now, that sounds bad.

[CMJ]

Eb let me know..the first President was John Hanson. I was right..he was elected during the Articles of Confederation. ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah you win that one, CMJ, I completely forgot about that.

Looks like Kashmir is getting worse, some group tried to assissnate one of the candiates for President, there has been bombings all week, I wouldn't be surprise if war started between the two nuclear powers before the month is over. I have question if they are at war, would we really consider going to war with Iraq? I think that would be insane, and the the world would think we are stupid because the situation in Kashmir is 100 times worse than Iraq, anything could happen there, especially if a war started. Pakistan knows they can't win a ground war and they could use there nuclear arsenel, if that happens we will have millions dead and it would be the worst disaster ever to have happened in the history of the earth.

[Sene Unty]

Yeah I think we need to clear this up before we fight Iraq. Our personal vendetta against one man does not overshawdow the need to prevent massive casualties.

[ReaperFett]

Apparently, Blair's dossier he is releasing before recalling parliment has proof that Iraq trained high members in Al Quaeda

[Wei Wu Wei]

Well. That sure is bad. But I would like for America not to go to war. I remember in US History class, America's foreign policy at first was "talk, and work out a compromise." That was in its infancy.

Nowasays, American foreign policy goes something like, "If the other person does not agree, bomb the crap out of them." I do wish America went back to the old way of dealing with foreign governments.

[Sene Unty]

"If the other person does not agree, bomb the crap out of them."


LOL Wei.

[Darth Viscera]

Funny, I don't see Iraqi ground units exploding through a night vision lense on CNN, and the Iraqis have been disagreeing with us (and by us I mean THE U.N.) for 11 years since we last kicked the crap out of them.

Are you making uneducated, stereotypical assumptions, Wei, or is there a massive air campaign against Baghdad going on right now that I'm unaware of?

[Darth23]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
Well. That sure is bad. But I would like for America not to go to war. I remember in US History class, America's foreign policy at first was "talk, and work out a compromise." That was in its infancy.

Nowasays, American foreign policy goes something like, "If the other person does not agree, bomb the crap out of them." I do wish America went back to the old way of dealing with foreign governments.


You mean using the CIA to overthrow governments we don't like?

[JediBoricua]

Well Irak has agreed to have UN inspectors in the country, "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Good! Now to wait and see.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/index.html

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well this is an interesting development, and I think its a good thing, but now the White house is saying that they don't believe it and that it comes with conditions??? what is this I think they want a war, If Iraq is willing to let them come then send in the inspectors if they don't they will lose ever ally they got and the rest of the world will portray us as the bad guy.

[Darth Viscera]

Well, Iraq has said such things before. Hopefully they will abide by their promises this time. Don't bet on it, though.

[Sene Unty]

Well this should at least stall the war for a little while, that is if Bush decides to remove his finger from the button.....

[Doc Milo]

"War is a horrible thing. But not the most horrible of things. The decayed and degraded state of human and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. A man that has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he values greater than his own life, is a miserable creature that has no chance of being free unless made and kept so through the efforts of greater men than himself."

[Jedi Master Carr]

Just curious who said that? I was thinking it was Roosevelt before WWII.

[Doc Milo]

I don't remember who said it. I always remember the quote, but not who said it. I think the guy who said it was British, though, although I'm drawing a blank...

[Jedi Master Carr]

Churchill maybe than, it sounds like it was said around WW 2 but it could have been earlier.

[Doc Milo]

I don't think it was Churchill. I remember reading who the quote was attributed to, and thinking that I had never heard of the guy before.... I'm still drawing a blank tho . . . sorry.

[Wei Wu Wei]

"War is a horrible thing. But not the most horrible of things. The decayed and degraded state of human and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. A man that has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he values greater than his own life, is a miserable creature that has no chance of being free unless made and kept so through the efforts of greater men than himself."

when I said I did not want to go to war, I meant we should not go to war over something that can be dealt with through non-violent means. I have things that I will fight for. My family and my friends are two of those things. However, if fighting can be prevented, then how about not fighting?

[Darth23]

Cause then we woudln't get a chance to blow things up real good.

It's what we're best at.

[Darth23]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Well, Iraq has said such things before. Hopefully they will abide by their promises this time. Don't bet on it, though.

Its doesn't matter wheter or not they abide by their promises. The Bush administration has already sad that they want to get rid of Saddam, whether ot not inspections happen again. If the Bush Administration has the ability to set the terms, they'll just keep making them stricter and harder to accept until Iraq finally rejects them. That's the basic plan. it worked before and it will work again.

Unfortunately for them Russia, China and even Germany seem to want to send the inspectors back in. This is bad news since we all knwo that the decision to invae Iraq has already been made. The only real debate i the Administration recently has been betwen the peopel who think we should invade Iraq only with UN and/or COngressional approval, and those who think we shoudl invade Iraq no matter what.

This is what is laughingly knows as political debate these days.

We planned on going into Afghanistan and we did. We planned on attacking Iraq after they invaded Kuwait, and we did. We planned on attacking Panama and we did. We planned on going into Grenada, and we did. Actually we didnt'really plan thart one too much, it just sort of 'happened' a few days after suicide bombers killer a lot of Marines in Lebanon.

The Invasion of Iraq is a done deal. And it will almost difinitely happen before the November elections.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well if we go in with Iraq saying they will let inspectors in (before letting them kick them out) we will be hated even more, the arab world will be mad, we will see terrorism on a greater level, we also might see Russia reinvade Chechina (hey they think we can do what we want) and China might take a tougher hand with Taiwan which could lead to who knows what.

[Sene Unty]

I think I do......World War III.......I shudder to think......

[Jedi Master Carr]

People have questioned if we would defend Taiwan if China invaded, I pray we don't let China have Taiwan, there is no reason to start WWIII over that small island.

[CMJ]

I've been behind Bush on Iraq, but I think he needs to chill out for a month...let the inspectors go in....wait till they get thrwn out...THEN go in with guns blazing.

Then again, I'm not on his staff.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you inspectors need at least try to go in, if it doesn't work at least it looked the US tried, otherwise we are going to be more hated around the world.

[CMJ]

Nah, we'll be more hated either way. I guarantee you even if we wait for inspectors to get thrown out before we take Hussein out Arab's will STILL resent us(and the rest of the West) for removing him.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Hey, you guys, I need a little background. What exactly made the US and Sadaam hate each other to begin with? I mean, when two people have problems with each other, you find out what those problems are and you come to a compromise. Right?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I think Russia, France and Germany will be extremly mad at us and some of the moderate Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will get angry at us and could raise oil rates. Still, I think the general arab populace will still hate us either way and terrorist groups will use it to there advantage either way. If we act alone, however, we make some of our allies mad at us and that would not be a good thing.

[JediBoricua]

I said it in my first post. If the inspectors are not allowed to work, then and only then should the US invade. The world will be behind it, at least the key states like the top 5 in the sec. council, and the moderate arab nations. It is the only way for the US to come out winning the diplomatic game. Unilateral action by the US will get more suicide bombers in Israel, war in Chechenia(sp? I said it in spanish), and god knows what.

I really hope this is not a ploy for the nov. elections. But right now congress is discussing a resolution to grant military powers to the White House concerning Irak. I was seeing the newsbit on CNN and my mind jumped to "I love democracy, I love the Republic..." STAR WARS HAS RUIN ME!!!! ;)

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
Hey, you guys, I need a little background. What exactly made the US and Sadaam hate each other to begin with? I mean, when two people have problems with each other, you find out what those problems are and you come to a compromise. Right?

Because Saddam was supposed to be our pseudo-puppet dictator, someone we could use to oppose Iran's population explosion (20 million to 65 million from 1975 to 2000), after the Iranian rebels (some call them revolutionaries) took U.S. hostages for 444 days and seized the reigns of power from the Shah. So we gave him weapons with which to prosecute the 9 year war with Iran, (he was taking on a country twice Iraq's size), and he still lost. A year later he took Kuwait, at which time he went on the U.S. government's list of "rogues", people who we can no longer control and will be a thorn in our side until they die or until we kill them.

A similar thing happened with Castro. For the first few months after Castro seized power, he had CIA people trying to advise him. The CIA informed Castro that there might be some communists in his government, and that they should be given the boot, and Castro insisted to the CIA that his government was non-communist. We wanted to keep tabs on Cuba even though it had gotten rid of its last Generalissimo, who had also been advised by the CIA, but within a few months Castro went rogue and started looking to the Soviets because he was disgruntled that the U.S. hadn't made him a professional baseball player and "I Love Lucy" was waning, not to mention he wanted to be the one who was dating Marilyn Monroe :)

[Wei Wu Wei]

Thanks, Viscera. I appreciate it. Ok, so basically we are pissed cause Sadaam screwed up.

[Darth Viscera]

More because he decided to go off and invade Kuwait on his own accord. Like a trained dog who escapes from his leesh and bites someone, and then you have to put him down.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I see. So we created a monster. Sometimes it's best just to keep your hands out of things that you have no business messing with.

[Darth Viscera]

Sometimes you mess, sometimes you don't mess. Life is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get.

[CMJ]

We KNEW the guy was a SOB when we were helping him, but we were using the whole philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is usually NOT the case. :\

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well we might have a bigger mess on our hads I just read this off the AP

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&ncid=574&e=3&u=/nm/20020924/wl_nm/india_temple_dc_7

A bunch of Pakistan extremist went into a Indian Temple and shot up the place killing so far 23 people, and from what I can tell the situation is still on going. This is a huge disaster and could trigger war between the two nuclear rivals, they have been on the brink of it for months, and many have said one more terrorist attack could cause war. Now the worry will be will either side launch there nukes, on purpose or by accident, if so we we are looking at casualities in the millions.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Likely - or a huge anti muslim riot.

Did anyone see the "evidence" Tony Blair offered up as a case against Iraq? It's not convincing at all.

[ReaperFett]

Was enough for me

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I was right

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=535&ncid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20020925/ap_on_re_as/india_temple_attack

It was Kashmir rebels or Terrorists, this is not good at all, there is now more anger, I would not be surprised if war starts soon and then we got the threat of nuclear war because this would be the first war ever between two nuclear powers, and in that war anything is possible, what gets me is why is nobody talking about it? They seem more worried about Iraq which I find insane, if India and Pakistan nuke each other Iraq won't matter, heck they might kill Hussien for us from Radiation posioning. The Radiation would spread from Israel to China and could kill 1/3-1/2 of the population of that part of the world in the next 10 years (this is because that part is so poor I doubt they could get proper treatment) plus there is starvation famine, this would be the greatest disaster in world history and nobody seems to care, they care more about Iraq, it just drives me nuts.

[Wei Wu Wei]

In the last days, perilous times shall come. Men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, and unholy. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those who do good. Traitors, heady, high-minded..."

This really seems to fit the whole tone of this discussion.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well as a historian we have seen those type of actions before going back to Ancient times, I think it is the nature of mankind.

Also I read this on Pakistan, its a interesting read and scary the author thinks the U.S could be sending Pakistan into chaos.

http://www.iht.com/articles/71436.htm

If military extremists took over we are screwed there, we couldn't invade because they would use there nukes on India who would then use there nukes on Pakistan killing most of our troops, it is a very delicate situation and probably the most dangerous part of the world right now.

[Darth Viscera]

LOL, there's only one thing that comes to mind while I'm trying to formulate an opinion about all these events and counterevents.

FUBAR.

I hope the boys at the Department of Defense have stocked up on aspirin.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Talk about the Bush league, eh?

[Darth Viscera]

Anyone hear about the protests here in D.C. yesterday?

[Rinoa Heartilly]

..China...

*gulp*

I live in China....

[JediBoricua]

600 arrested right?

Any Starbucks vandalized? ;)

[Darth23]

We can only hope. >:^D

The anti-Globalization protests aren't going to end any time soon.

Pretty soon they'll only be having the meetings in ultra repressive countries

[JediBoricua]

It will be weird seeing the G8 meeting in Sudan though...