>>>Hey, I like to party too and not have to think about all the mess that is going on.<<<
If the whole world has weekly musical spaghetti parties we'd have a lotta fun, eh? Indeed, 'tis important to celebrate life!
>>>Unfortunately, my conscience would not allow me to leave your assertions unchallenged.<<<
And please do realize my writings are spawned from good conscience, as well.
>>>The result of leaving saddam alone is not peace for the rest of the world. This is a widely recognized fact by the UN security council. It is all about the lesser evil here. Do you leave someone like that alone, when you know once he gets breathing room, he will come after the american people with any tool at his disposal? This is not a viable option.<<<
There is no evidence of this. Please provide same. Sorta reminds me of when the Russians were invading Maine and Oregon. Or Cuba invading Florida.
>>>There is a wide misunderstanding of how muslims really feel about the americans. Sure there is widespread resentment, sure they hate the americans and israel, but you don't realize that the support for Al Qaeda is a lot weaker than you assert.<<<
The younger, unemployed Arab generations are ripe for Al Queda recruitment. Let me ask you what were the incidents that led to Al Qaeda getting as large as it did? And why couldn't it grow even large if the pool of hatred and resentment increases? I'll tell ya--and do you agree?--Bush's version of America threatening to boycott the UN conference against racism didn't help matters.
>>>In Asia, as an example, after the initial distrust and suspicion of Bali, the masses in the country with the highest muslim population now realize how insane the Al Qaeda doctrine is and they are doing a very good job of uprooting this organization. This is happening in many areas of asia ~ in most cases without any prodding from the americans.<<<
I would like to believe this. Again, please show me the evidence of same.
>>>Of course there is demonstrations and protests against this war. In england, at the start of WW2, there were protests too. If you compare the texts of the pacifists then and now, they are almost the same word for word. Nothing changes.<<<
Well, pacificism is, well, er, ah pacificism. Is it not? Why would it at all be different?
>>>Sane people hate war, this is well understood by all. However, Bush cannot walk away from someone who has shown willingness to do severe damage to the american people. It would be easy for him to be a pacifist, and he might even gain a few points in popularity, but the fact is : it takes courage to stand up and follow the hard path knowing there are hard and painful decisions ahead. He might very well be sending american soldiers to die, and the cause had better be just.<<<
Again, where is the evidence that Saddam has harmed the American people, other than responding to the elder Bush's driving him from Kuwait? As to Bush's stance, why'd he put the war before the elections instead of the economy? 'Cause people are clearly more apt to vote war.
>>>When the bombing starts, will Saddam bomb its own citizens and women children? Yes. He needs to survive and will easily sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own people to get there. Will some muslims believe the americans are targetting iraqi civilians? Yes. For a period, all hell will break loose. There will be riots in the muslim world. Will the truth eventually come out? Yes. Eventually, and perhaps that will make it a better world.<<<
Disagree. If what you label as the truth had come out before, there wouldn't then be as much hatred for America. Would there? Do you think we get propaganda via America's primary media? You know, spoonfed plant-like stories? Fearful of beging deprived of a scoop down the road, our media almost always takes the military bait.
>>>There are many peaceful muslims with a conscience who understand what Al Qaeda did was wrong. There are too few willing to speak out. But the muslim extemists who wish to fight americans have been fighting and plotting for a while and unfortunately, the americans, by being successful and largely secular will have to fight them. Even their children may have to fight them. Until the americans surrender their sinful non-muslim way of life, this is not going away. Understand this is a war for the right to exist and you get the right idea.<<<
The better response to 9/11 would have been not to play cowboy. Rather an immediate conference for worldwide dialogue on why what happened happened. Why not put ethnic poverty really and seriously on the agenda instead of invoking policies to keep it as a condition. Remember, Bush comes from a political party that historicall over the past few decades has had no use for the U.N.
>>>Suppose I take your side. Will walking away from saddam mean less muslims will fight americans? I doubt it, after posturing by the US with some minimal support by the UN, walking away will reveal americans to be nothing but toothless paper tigers. If anything, it will hasten the demise of their way of life and embolden the muslim extremist who will now gain in strength of numbers.<<<
An openness to help others is needed. The US will do that but only if doing so meets its direct interests. Instead, and sadly, our nation has shown a continued and demonstrated willingness to rape and pillage third world nations for resources with a back-up threat of military might. This does not a good balanced world make.
>>>But what of Saddam? The start of the war has a chance where there will be bodies of iraqi women and children paraded in front of CNN and AL Jazeera. If the american bombs are accurate, saddam will just have to get his people to do the dirty work. There could very well be bombed out civilian apartments, maternity wards. Many innocent will die.<<<
Yes, 5.5 million folks populate Baghdad. Add in a 300,000 strong army and the US at the perimeter and, hey, what ya gonna do, call Ghostbusters? One word: tragedy, whether the US moves in or whether it lays the city in a state of seige.
>>>This is why the best way to successfully remove Saddam is to ensure that his inner circle is cut off completely from the rest of his armed forces. I suspect that the right offer to the rank and file and a show of sufficient force can minimize the losses of innocent civilians. In fact, if Saddam were to bomb his own people, perhaps his soldiers will turn on him too.<<<
Me thinks the above paragraph is a derivative of wishful thinking.
>>>Back to the international diplomacy stuff : We are not dealing with a neutral presumed-innocent party here. By international law (ie: UN's resolution 1441 etc), the onus is on Iraq to provide full and complete accounting of their weapons. They have failed and given the weight of evidence due to their pattern of action here, in a normal court, this would be the remedy phase of the trial.<<<
This sort of reminds me of the surgeon doing exporatory surgery and not finding anything. Next day the patient dies. Is this the fault of the patient?
>>>Actually, given the ease of moving needles in a haystack without detection, I'm surprised that the un inspectors even found this. Guess the UN inspectors are working round the clock.<<<
I've asked the question before, I'll ask it again. Would you: a) prefer inspections go on a long time, simultaneously keeping Saddam in check; or, b) go into a war condition which has the potential to become tinderbox like and spread throughout the region and beyond, and where hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more could die?
Peace! |
