> Of course, his guitar playing side-line may be very successful and that all
> the computers are actually his, in which case I have to assume he registers
> under the U.K. because he lives there - just as I would change my country
> designator if I moved to a tropical clime.
>
> -H. Richard Utzig
>

Same for me. I am Canadian but since I live in France and has citizenship why not.

> > I agree that we have made mistakes in the world in the past, but what
> does a
> > coup in Chile in 1973 have to do with Bush in Iraq? Isn't that a long
> (30
> > year) stretch? It's clear you disagree with me, but my premise is sound:
> we
> > had a legally sound justification for the war (which doesn't apply to
> either
> > Iran or North Korea). And this focus on the lack of WMD, while
> relevant,
> > should not distract from the reality of the situation, today: that the
> Iraqis
> > and the world are better off with Saddam gone.
>
> It has to do with Irak because it's the same kind of mentallity that US do
> what
> ever they want when they think it could be good for them. Nothing has
> changed.
> You must remember on the news channel during the fight between US and FRANCE
> over Irak, US media where showing Chirac shaking hands with Sadam all the
> times.
> That was taken in the 70's. Did they ever show rumsfeld doing the same ? The
> US
> Government is doind misinformation and the medias are playing the game. Last
> US air strike over Irak killed a lot in insurgents on US news. Well on every
> European
> news, even your "allied" it says it killed woman and childrens and showed a
> little girl
> arriving at hospital. Do the Irakis are better of today ? I'm not so sure. It
> was certainly
> easy to remove Sadam, it took what 3 weeks before "mission acomplished" but
> the
> aftermath....The country has become a terrorist paradise. One thing I found
> very funny
> is the fight over insurgencies. Who is in the right to fight who ? Who has
> invades who ?
> Those insurgents are on their land. they were born there. they have the rights
> to be there
> and deffend their interrest with what they have. US did not have the right to
> invade Irak
> period. Bush needed 9/15 votes at the security concil but he had I think 4 or
> 5 other
> country in favor. France did not VETO for it was not necessary anyway. The
> truth is US
> has created a huge mess in that region illigaly. not for WMD (remember that
> period when
> everybody well UK and US said Sadam could strike nuke attacks in 40 minutes
> ect.) not to
> free Iraki people. And what about the illigal prison in cuba ? how many
> innocent are there
> just because they had a taliban look ? No I am really against US foreign
> policy and it would
> be time for US to start asking themselves the real questions and not doing
> everything under
> the sun because it is good for them and because they have the weapons to do
> it. Chirac said
> a few days ago that "we have oppened a pendor's box" Note that he said "we"
> not US but
> this is so true.
>

The US has to have a war every 10 years, in order to test their military equipment in a real life scenario. Just take a look back over the years since ww2.
--------------
Ost, nej tak!
--------------

FalconFly,

I think your assumptions are wrong: 1) we did not go to war with Iraq in order to "rule/police/control" the country; 2) we are not trying to "[supress] other cultures/nations with military force" in Iraq or elsewhere; and 3) the fine art of diplomacy is still intact, but sometimes diplomacy does not work.

1) We went to war in Iraq because of the perceived threat to the United States and the world. The coalition administrative government is gone, and in its place is the provisional Iraqi government, which is at this moment preparing for national elections. In the last 80 years, the United States has had no history of conquest in order to rule another sovereign territory-- Japan, France, Germany and Italy are free Democratic nations, even though the American military was instrumental in securing those territories in World War II. More recently, South Korea, Granada, Panamá and Kuwait have all seen the American military intervene when American interests were at stake.

2) The United States led coalition ousted a bloody dictator with military force, but Iraq is on a steady course to its own form of government. As the process has been conducted by Iraqis, it can't be said that anyone is suppressing their culture.

3) The United States and the United Nations let Saddam have his way for 12 years, and in the last months before the war, diplomatic pressure was put on him to comply with his obligations under the cease-fire agreement. He had every chance to comply for more than a decade. Diplomacy is not dead, but it sure did not work in this case. And during the period of time that Saddam was playing games, his people suffered because of sanctions while he lived in opulent splendor in more than a half-dozen palaces. Even putting aside his history with WMD, his personal excesses of wealth, and the mass murders he and his régime committed, it was time to put an end to this criminal's treatment of his own people while he wallowed in gold-plated bathtubs. It happens, in the case of this dictator, that he was in violation of an internationally sanctioned cease-fire agreement -- and that brings me back to my original point, that Iraq is different from North Korea and Iran because of the violation by Saddam and his government of that legal agreement.

As far as global destabilization is concerned, I think Al Qaeda has that covered. Don't blame the United States for something they started.

> The US has to have a war every 10 years, in order to test their military
> equipment in a real life scenario. Just take a look back over the years since
> ww2.
> --------------
> Ost, nej tak!
> --------------
>
If you really believe that, then there's nothing that will change your mind. I set out my arguments and you responded with an opinionated slogan. That certainly doesn't change my mind or add to the debate.

Marc, you are passionate about this, but not convincing.

> It has to do with Irak because it's the same kind of mentallity that US do
> what
> ever they want when they think it could be good for them. Nothing has
> changed.

Evry country does what is best for them, I was saying that there is, in this case, a legal justification.

> You must remember on the news channel during the fight between US and FRANCE
> over Irak, US media where showing Chirac shaking hands with Sadam all the
> times.
> That was taken in the 70's. Did they ever show rumsfeld doing the same ? The
> US
> Government is doind misinformation and the medias are playing the game. Last
> US air strike over Irak killed a lot in insurgents on US news. Well on every
> European
> news, even your "allied" it says it killed woman and childrens and showed a
> little girl
> arriving at hospital. Do the Irakis are better of today ? I'm not so sure. It
> was certainly
> easy to remove Sadam, it took what 3 weeks before "mission acomplished" but
> the
> aftermath....The country has become a terrorist paradise. One thing I found
> very funny
> is the fight over insurgencies. Who is in the right to fight who ? Who has
> invades who ?
> Those insurgents are on their land. they were born there. they have the rights
> to be there

I never saw Shirac shaking hands with Saddam on TV, and in fact, the American media is very anti-Bush--it has been widely reported that Rumsfeld went to Iraq when the US had hostages in Iran (and Iraq looked like it could help). This time, instead of relying on a surrogate to do our work we are doing it (in Iraq) ourselves, with a coalition that agreed with our reasons. The 9/11 commission and every other credible analyst has admitted that Saddam, though he disliked Bin Laden, has supported terrorism for years. And, selfish as this seems, the fact that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and not America is to America's benefit. Your "terrorist paradise" is not made up of only Iraqis, it is largely outsiders, mainly Al Qaeda: so, do they have the "right" to come to Iraq and try to destabilize what Iraquis are trying to create? Can you really say, with the criminal acts of Saddam in mind, that the Iraqi people are not better off now that he's gone?

> and deffend their interrest with what they have. US did not have the right to
> invade Irak
> period. Bush needed 9/15 votes at the security concil but he had I think 4 or
> 5 other
> country in favor. France did not VETO for it was not necessary anyway. The
> truth is US
> has created a huge mess in that region illigaly. not for WMD (remember that
> period when
> everybody well UK and US said Sadam could strike nuke attacks in 40 minutes
> ect.) not to
> free Iraki people.

You say the war is illegal, but you state it as opinion, with no facts to back it up. I admit no WMD have been found, but as I said, there were other legal grounds for the war. Why do you not respond to my arguments? Do you not remember the first Gulf war? The cease-fire agreement? The violations of that agreement? The UN imposed sanctions? The unanimous UN resolution that threatened action if Saddam would not comply with his obligations? Can you claim that these things did not happen?

> And what about the illigal prison in cuba ? how many
> innocent are there
> just because they had a taliban look ?

This has nothing to do with the legality of the war, you just don't like it so you have thrown it in, in an attempt to make the US look bad, but that doesn't make the war itself illegal.

> No I am really against US foreign
> policy and it would
> be time for US to start asking themselves the real questions and not doing
> everything under
> the sun because it is good for them and because they have the weapons to do
> it. Chirac said
> a few days ago that "we have oppened a pendor's box" Note that he said "we"
> not US but
> this is so true.
>

Because you disagree with American foriegn policy you seem to think that you don't have to back up your arguments. Re-read my original post, then your response. You do not convince by simply stating opinions and pointing out things that you do not like. Tell me why my arguments are wrong.

> FalconFly,
>
> I think your assumptions are wrong: 1) we did not go to war with Iraq in order
> to "rule/police/control" the country; 2) we are not trying to "[supress] other
> cultures/nations with military force" in Iraq or elsewhere; and 3) the fine
> art of diplomacy is still intact, but sometimes diplomacy does not work.

Ask yourself how many military and energy intelligen*cough* ehm, I meant "inspectors" are roaming other nations' facilities?
And now, how many of those nations are roaming the equivalent US facilities in return ? *a lightbulb shoult lit here*
And what is threatened against nations that do not accept those inspectors in within their territory ? Then compare against the US. *2nd lightbulb lits*

...no more questions asked, a perfect example, and just one of many.

> 1) We went to war in Iraq because of the perceived threat to the United States
> and the world. The coalition administrative government is gone, and in its
> place is the provisional Iraqi government, which is at this moment preparing
> for national elections. In the last 80 years, the United States has had no
> history of conquest in order to rule another sovereign territory-- Japan,
> France, Germany and Italy are free Democratic nations, even though the
> American military was instrumental in securing those territories in World War
> II. More recently, South Korea, Granada, Panamá and Kuwait have all seen the
> American military intervene when American interests were at stake.

Well, that percieved threat was almost entirely constructed, and even your own Intelligence confirmed that. It was your President that deleted critical parts of the relevant reports before taking them public to support his cause. (which lead to a completely distorted view)

Maybe I should have rephrased the sentence.
The United States do whatever it takes to force their "National Interests" beyond any other considerations.
Within the last 40 years alone, it has performed more violations of international laws and intervened into souvereign nations, than any other country on earth (I think they even beat the Russians by a fair margin at that).

(since they don't even accept the international court, that's 'relative' I guess)

Their involvement (from pure national interest) has not seldomly caused massive instability and stirred conflicts, international irritations, and is the actual reason why it has made more enemies then any other country I can think of. From interrogation, confirmed espionage (even against their own allies) upto military intervention; the list is long.

If all other nations were to do the same in their own national interest the same way, this planet would be nothing but a moon scape by now.

PS.
Please read declassified reports of CIA activities within the last 40 years.
(and mind you, even the declassified material makes ya think, and that's just one agency)

> 2) The United States led coalition ousted a bloody dictator with military
> force, but Iraq is on a steady course to its own form of government. As the
> process has been conducted by Iraqis, it can't be said that anyone is
> suppressing their culture.

This "Coalition" was assembled purely for media and political reasons, the actual defining part was always and solely the United States.
I agree, a dictator was "fired", but ask yourself one thing :
How many dictators are left, and when/how are you going to remove those, and with what consequences?
And how can you believe this will make things heaps better for people, that have lived under a comparable regimes/circumstances and the same deeply manifested religion for the last 3000 years ?

Chances are, we won't see the military stop Dictators in any place of the world, where it does not fit your National Interest.

> 3) The United States and the United Nations let Saddam have his way for 12
> years, and in the last months before the war, diplomatic pressure was put on
> him to comply with his obligations under the cease-fire agreement. He had
> every chance to comply for more than a decade. Diplomacy is not dead, but it
> sure did not work in this case. And during the period of time that Saddam was
> playing games, his people suffered because of sanctions while he lived in
> opulent splendor in more than a half-dozen palaces. Even putting aside his
> history with WMD, his personal excesses of wealth, and the mass murders he and
> his régime committed, it was time to put an end to this criminal's treatment
> of his own people while he wallowed in gold-plated bathtubs. It happens, in
> the case of this dictator, that he was in violation of an
> internationally sanctioned cease-fire agreement -- and that brings me back to
> my original point, that Iraq is different from North Korea and Iran because of
> the violation by Saddam and his government of that legal agreement.
>
> As far as global destabilization is concerned, I think Al Qaeda has that
> covered. Don't blame the United States for something they started.

Well, I have lots of reports of the US Military breaking their own restrictions during this entire phase.
Just send aircraft and drones in areas where they're not supposed to be just often enough, chances are they will be fired upon eventually (which was the sole intent)

Forces like Al Qaeda were of little to no real threat until the last ~10 years.
But now they've been given an international platform, the best arguments to continue and more fresh members and support than they could have ever dreamed of.
But I'm not compaining, the United States have a long tradition of building up their own enemies, just to use them as a Threat scenario (and a justification for its Policiy) a mere decade later.
============================
Trust me on one thing, nothing is as it seems in and around the United States, and there's a whole lot of dirty things going around every day.
The only reason they can pull this off is that they either remain secretive (other nations investigations reports remain classified for political reasons), or simply "because they can".

If a nation was a human, you certainly couldn't fully trust that guy even for a split second, he's always acting solely in his own interest, permanently attempts to manipulate all that are around him and (if not needed for his cause) couldn't care less even if you're dying on the road next to him.
Sad, but that's the current, true "way of life" seen there in the last years.
(however, to keeps things fair, other nations have their problems and shortcomings just as well; although they don't tend to destabilitze the entire planet with their actions)

Just wait another 10 years, I bet you have just another war somewhere else on this world led by this Nation. The actual forces driving it behind what the public is meant to see and believe will make sure there is one, just like it did in the past...

The bottom line is :
If the rules of souvereign nations being untouchable, unless they commit an act of way is broken, the road is open for the following :

Just imagine a powerful non-democratic nation, with strong national interests and the military assets available to enforce those.
They could, using their own definitions of good/bad/right/wrong, intervene into and "free" any democratic nation with the same justification.
If one was to play things correct, that would be just as justified, and an "evil capitalistic regime" could be removed to "free the people" :p

Don't get me wrong here :
The poeple in the US are actually quite okay, usually really nice people.
Unfortunately, they seem to have little clue as to what their government is really onto, and what price they are already paying for it.

I am not quite sure if it is right or smart to use military force to make things go "our way".
Chances are, times will come where we ourself (for whatever reasons) will see a period of weakness. Then, mercy upon us, that none of "the others" take their revenge if they are in a situation that enables them to have it if they desire so. Bare in mind, some cultures vividly remember being conquered or overthrown for many hundreds of years to come, as if it was yesterday.
___________________________________________
<p>Scientific Network : 36200 MHz «» 8204 MB «» 815.0 GB </p>

Bush seems to use everything to try to promote his candidacy --- the 9/11 dead, the Iraqi & Afghani Olympic teams, his "flight suit modelling" on the "Mission Accomplished" ship etc. Perhaps that's why the world and many Americans see him as a hypocrite and crass opportunist. Yet the worst they can say of Kerry is trite crap like "flip-flop" and "he says he's a Vietnam Veteran."

And Kofi Annan just said the US invasion was illegal; so trying to spin it as a "war of liberation" or "war of WMDs" or whatever the talking point du jour is for the Freeper gang is just silly.

PS -- as for my "home country," I moved to the UK from the US to work on cp.net, when I finish here at Oxford in two months, I plan to remain in the UK. I feel that the UK, which has greater freedom and "standard of living" than the US, is now my "home country." I wish more Americans would get a passport and travel the world more (esp Europe) and see what they're missing in the land of WalMart! ;-)

FalconFly,
It's late here in Hawai‘i, so I may have to get back to this tomorrow, but this is my response:

> Ask yourself how many military and energy intelligen*cough* ehm, I meant
> "inspectors" are roaming other nations' facilities?
> And now, how many of those nations are roaming the equivalent US facilities in
> return ? *a lightbulb shoult lit here*
> And what is threatened against nations that do not accept those inspectors in
> within their territory ? Then compare against the US. *2nd lightbulb lits*
>

America did not lose a war and agree to inspections as part of a cease-fire agreement.

> Well, that percieved threat was almost entirely constructed, and even your own
> Intelligence confirmed that. It was your President that deleted critical parts
> of the relevant reports before taking them public to support his cause. (which
> lead to a completely distorted view)
>

No WMD were found, but the threat was real: Saddam has supported terrorism, gassed his own people and the Iranians, violated his obligations, raped his country and refused to allow UN inspections for WMD. If you fought a bully who once brandished a knife, would you believe him when he said he no longer had that knife, and he would not let you check that the knife was gone? You do not seem so gullible.

> Maybe I should have rephrased the sentence.
> The United States do whatever it takes to force their "National Interests"
> beyond any other considerations.
> Within the last 40 years alone, it has performed more violations of
> international laws and intervened into souvereign nations, than any other
> country on earth (I think they even beat the Russians by a fair margin at
> that).
>

Are you talking about espionage? Every country does that, and if their spies are caught, they are treated as criminals. But you can't seriously believe that, assuming the US acted illegally in the past, that it must be acting illegally now and forever--if you believe this, then I have nothing more to say. I gave my reasons this war was justified, not any other war or action. Let's stay on the subject, because I can't justify everthing my country has ever done, and you can't justify everything yours has done either.

> This "Coalition" was assembled purely for media and political reasons, the
> actual defining part was always and solely the United States.

I agree.

> I agree, a dictator was "fired", but ask yourself one thing :
> How many dictators are left, and when/how are you going to remove those, and
> with what consequences?
> And how can you believe this will make things heaps better for people, that
> have lived under a comparable regimes/circumstances and the same deeply
> manifested religion for the last 3000 years ?
>
> Chances are, we won't see the military stop Dictators in any place of the
> world, where it does not fit your National Interest.

Are you saying the US should stop all the other dictators? My point was that the US had grounds to go into Iraq, but not Korea or Iran, but if you think we should . . .

> As far as global destabilization is concerned, I think Al Qaeda has that
> > covered. Don't blame the United States for something they started.
>
> Well, I have lots of reports of the US Military breaking their own
> restrictions during this entire phase.
> Just send aircraft and drones in areas where they're not supposed to be just
> often enough, chances are they will be fired upon eventually (which was the
> sole intent)
>
> Forces like Al Qaeda were of little to no real threat until the last ~10
> years.

That's easy for you to say, but the US was attacked on 9/11 and ~3,000 died--not as a result of being too close to a battle, but because these 3,000 civilians were the target of Al Qaeda. Don't tell me Al Qaeda was no real threat. And that threat changed the way we must deal with other international criminals, like Saddam.

> But now they've been given an international platform, the best arguments to
> continue and more fresh members and support than they could have ever dreamed
> of.
> But I'm not compaining, the United States have a long tradition of building up
> their own enemies, just to use them as a Threat scenario (and a justification
> for its Policiy) a mere decade later.
> ============================
> Trust me on one thing, nothing is as it seems in and around the United States,
> and there's a whole lot of dirty things going around every day.

I also agree with this, but is doesn't change my mind that this war was and is justified.

> The only reason they can pull this off is that they either remain secretive
> (other nations investigations reports remain classified for political
> reasons), or simply "because they can".
>
> If a nation was a human, you certainly couldn't fully trust that guy even for
> a split second, he's always acting solely in his own interest, permanently
> attempts to manipulate all that are around him and (if not needed for his
> cause) couldn't care less even if you're dying on the road next to him.
> Sad, but that's the current, true "way of life" seen there in the last years.
> (however, to keeps things fair, other nations have their problems and
> shortcomings just as well; although they don't tend to destabilitze the entire
> planet with their actions)
>

So, if Iraq was a human you "certainly couldn't fully trust that guy even for
a split second, he's always acting solely in his own interest, permanently attempts to manipulate all that are around him". That's why, when Saddam stopped the inspectors, the US could not take a chance.

> Just wait another 10 years, I bet you have just another war somewhere else on
> this world led by this Nation. The actual forces driving it behind what the
> public is meant to see and believe will make sure there is one, just like it
> did in the past...
>

Maybe, maybe not. It has no bearing to this discussion about this war.

> The bottom line is :
> If the rules of souvereign nations being untouchable, unless they commit an
> act of way is broken, the road is open for the following :
>
> Just imagine a powerful non-democratic nation, with strong national interests
> and the military assets available to enforce those.
> They could, using their own definitions of good/bad/right/wrong, intervene
> into and "free" any democratic nation with the same justification.
> If one was to play things correct, that would be just as justified, and an
> "evil capitalistic regime" could be removed to "free the people" :p

Yes, a nation that fails to live up to it's agreements, when that failure itself poses a threat, can be forced to live up to it's agreement. By the way, breaking the cease-fire agreement was an "act of war".

> Bush seems to use everything to try to promote his candidacy --- the 9/11
> dead, the Iraqi & Afghani Olympic teams, his "flight suit modelling" on
> the "Mission Accomplished" ship etc. Perhaps that's why the world and many
> Americans see him as a hypocrite and crass opportunist. Yet the worst they
> can say of Kerry is trite crap like "flip-flop" and "he says he's a Vietnam
> Veteran."
>
Yeah, he's a cad. But we were talking about the justification for the war, no the president's popularity.

> And Kofi Annan just said the US invasion was illegal; so trying to spin it as
> a "war of liberation" or "war of WMDs" or whatever the talking point du jour
> is for the Freeper gang is just silly.
>
Don't simply dismiss my arguments as "talking points". Though, neither of these that you cite are my main argument: that Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement and he violation was a threat based on his history.

> PS -- as for my "home country," I moved to the UK from the US to work on
> cp.net, when I finish here at Oxford in two months, I plan to remain in the
> UK. I feel that the UK, which has greater freedom and "standard of living"
> than the US, is now my "home country." I wish more Americans would get a
> passport and travel the world more (esp Europe) and see what they're missing
> in the land of WalMart! ;-)
>
Thanks for the clarification. Again, I was just curious. I have travelled all over the world, and I still like it here in Hawai‘i.

mbn stated;
>
> The US has to have a war every 10 years, in order to test their military
> equipment in a real life scenario. Just take a look back over the years since
> ww2.
> --------------
>
Hitting only the highlights of the past 90 years and taking into account your accusation of "starting a War to test military equipment every 10 years";

"WW I" European war, U.S. stupidly entered in 1917.

"WW II" European war, U.S. forced to enter in 1941 due to European ally attack on U.S. Naval Base

Korea United Nations Police Action, U.S. supports U.N.

Viet Nam French war to keep Indochina, screws the pooch, U.S. supports U.N. Police Action.

Lets tally for a moment, two "Wars" and two "Police Actions", none started by U.S. to "test military equipment"

I guess it is easy to forget about the French in Algeria, the Cubans in Angola, the Israelis in Palestine, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Chinese in Nepal, the Indians in Kashmir, Iraqis in Kuwait, all those little African countries kicking each others ass, and of course the rest of the non-U.S. "military equipment test sites" of the last 90 years.

Saddam and his genocide of the Kurds had to be dealt with no matter what. Any excuse would be a good excuse if an excuse should have been needed. As for what is happening in Iraq these days, it is the Iraqis that are killing Iraqis.

BTW, just in case you missed it, we are not the bad guys here, read some History, watch a little News on the tele, check out the BBC International News, they have some good murder, mayhem, revolution, genocide, invasions, and other atrocities to take your mind off the U.S. for a day or two.









<a> [/url]
-
Oderint dum metuant

Hasn't Israel violated plenty of the UN agreements, although the US usually barges in to cast a veto so nothing can happen. When do we start inspecting Israel's nuclear WMD capability, for which they have quite a bit (probably more than the UK) but still don't admit to it.

errr, what about Grenada, and all the overt & covert aid & assistance to "freedom fighters" (i.e. terrorists) in Central America, Afghanistan etc? Yet you are probably the type that will screech "why do THEY hate us?" The US does seem to like to prop up an "eternal enemy" --- since the Cold War was over the right-wing reptiles have been itching for another enemy. They didn't want to bother with China since there is too much money to be made off of slave labor there, so their old ally Bin Laden came in quite handy.

> errr, what about Grenada, and all the overt & covert aid & assistance
> to "freedom fighters" (i.e. terrorists) in Central America, Afghanistan etc?
> Yet you are probably the type that will screech "why do THEY hate us?" The US
> does seem to like to prop up an "eternal enemy" --- since the Cold War was
> over the right-wing reptiles have been itching for another enemy. They didn't
> want to bother with China since there is too much money to be made off of
> slave labor there, so their old ally Bin Laden came in quite handy.
>
>
What about Grenada? Hold U.S. Citizens hostage and threaten to kill them, you get whacked.

Sorry but I am not the type that will screech "why do THEY hate us?" however I am the type that went to Viet Nam just to be welcomed home with a bucket of blood poured over my uniform.



<a> [/url]
-
Oderint dum metuant

oh girls and boys it all over the world the same !


Machmal sind kleine aber durchdachte und verstandene Schritte die bessere Wahl.Guidos Boinc Forum

>What about Grenada? Hold U.S. Citizens hostage and threaten to kill them, you get
> whacked.

yeah right, except when it's in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or...?

>however I am the type that went to Viet Nam just to be welcomed home with a >bucket of blood poured over my uniform.

Oh come on, that's the biggest myth, that scads of hippies were running around spitting on Vietnam vets etc. There was some spitting done on Vietnam vets --- it was Repukes at the RNC in '72 spitting on vets protesting the war such as Ron "Born on the 4th of July" Kovic.

Now to try to keep this slightly on topic, do you think aliens would give a crap about contacting a nation of war-mongering buffoons? It reminds me of in "Contact" the first transmissions were from Nazi's. What if they're now getting Bush speeches? ;-)

> FalconFly,
> It's late here in Hawai‘i, so I may have to get back to this tomorrow, but
> this is my response:
>
> America did not lose a war and agree to inspections as part of a cease-fire
> agreement.

I wasn't talking about Iraq exclusively. Other nations are immediately threatened when denying the US insights into their technology by regular surveillance.
Of course, the US themself would never allow any other nation aquiring insights of 'their' technology or in return. That's just a one-way deal, which is not correct or right.

> No WMD were found, but the threat was real: Saddam has supported terrorism,
> gassed his own people and the Iranians, violated his obligations, raped his
> country and refused to allow UN inspections for WMD. If you fought a bully
> who once brandished a knife, would you believe him when he said he no longer
> had that knife, and he would not let you check that the knife was gone?
> You do not seem so gullible.

Well, how many other nations did the same in their past? A whole lot actually, yet noone cared about it. Iraq was never a Bully, more like a little kid and a plastic knife. A 3rd world country at most.

> Are you talking about espionage? Every country does that, and if their spies
> are caught, they are treated as criminals.

Not quite. Only a limited number of nations actually do that, and a whole lot less do so even against their own allies. And 'alot' less of those (I can name only 1) actually and blatantly admits it, and just doesn't give a darn about it.

> But you can't seriously believe
> that, assuming the US acted illegally in the past, that it must be acting
> illegally now and forever--if you believe this, then I have nothing more to
> say.

No, I do not claim nor forsee that.
In fact, the entire civilized portion of the world hopes for those things changing to the better.

> Are you saying the US should stop all the other dictators? My point
> was that the US had grounds to go into Iraq, but not Korea or Iran, but if you
> think we should . . .

Certainly not, I just wanted to point out that the "evil dictator" being one of the main arguments used, it would be only consequent to maintain and extend this position to all the other "candidate nations" which are still run by dictators.
But of course, this doesn't happen, since such arguments were never the true reason, they were just deemed useful for PR and the Media.

> That's easy for you to say, but the US was attacked on 9/11 and ~3,000
> died--not as a result of being too close to a battle, but because these 3,000
> civilians were the target of Al Qaeda. Don't tell me Al Qaeda was no real
> threat. And that threat changed the way we must deal with other international
> criminals, like Saddam.

Well, I won't go into details as to who 'really' attacked the US this unfortunate day (too many unique, strange and logically unreasonable things occured around this timeframe). All I'm saying here, that (as usual) things 'likely' aren't as simple and black/white as the Media (or other lobbies) presented it to the public.
Getting Iraq (as a point study case) into the loop by linking it to the "housed terrorists" argument, again, we'd have to be looking at a whole lot more nations, that did (and still do) exactly the same, none the better. Yet, everything "magically" focussed on this one Nation, almost like a pitbull dog that's stuck biting a leg and won't let go until it get's what it wants.

> I also agree with this, but is doesn't change my mind that this war was
> and is justified.

So some point I can also agree (after all, this gives those people down there at least a chance of freedom, which I deem a universal "should have" key item of humanity), I was merely questioning the 'actual' motivations behind it (which I reckon sure aren't as shiny and nice as they try to make you believe)

> So, if Iraq was a human you "certainly couldn't fully trust that guy even for
>
> a split second, he's always acting solely in his own interest, permanently
> attempts to manipulate all that are around him". That's why, when Saddam
> stopped the inspectors, the US could not take a chance.

Ehm, scratch Iraq, replace with the US in that context.
Of course, noone trusted Iraq's regime, but that a) wasn't our ally we were relying on, and the overall situation was public knowledge, no Catch 22 involved. Just a straight-forward dictator with typical knife-wedging notions to strenghten his position, like many others in the world.

> Yes, a nation that fails to live up to it's agreements, when that failure
> itself poses a threat, can be forced to live up to it's agreement. By the
> way, breaking the cease-fire agreement was an "act of war".

It's always good to be on the "right side" to make such calls I guess, after all the winner always gets to write the history books ;)
Lots of nations repeatedly fail to adhere to international agreements (or *ugh* refuse them alltogether *hint* ), but in the international 3-class society, some have to pay darely to it, while some simply can afford that luxury by acting from a position of undisputed strenght. Subtle, but major difference.

Bottom line :
As a nation, you just can't demand nor enforce Principles, Ideals, Philosopies or Rules, that you don't even follow yourself when not deemed useful.
If the US did not have this fundamental Problem of acting with double standards and 'playing dirty' as they seem fit on occasion, I'm absolutely certain, alot less people would raise their hands in critique about it.
-------------
Maybe I'm just too "oldschool" for this "modern policies".
In my humble opinion, a Nation (regardless of how catastrophic conditions exist inside it) remains utterly untouchable, until we either have
a) a valid and approved UN Resolution
or b) it commits an Act of War
(Act of War I define as a nation engaging in conventional warfare, or unmistakably, actively and repeatedly commiting Hostile Acts. "Potential" possibilities or a plain "percieved threat" does not qualify, because in theory, that would add a whole list of Nations all at once. Yet we don't bomb their Nuclear facilities, Weapon storages or alike.)
___________________________________________
<p>Scientific Network : 36200 MHz «» 8204 MB «» 815.0 GB </p>

I just wonder when _Bush_ is going to use small tactical nukes in his war against isla.. err terrorism.

> Now to try to keep this slightly on topic, do you think aliens would give a
> crap about contacting a nation of war-mongering buffoons? It reminds me of in
> "Contact" the first transmissions were from Nazi's. What if they're now
> getting Bush speeches? ;-)
>

I don't think the aliens will come to earth or answer our calls, until we mature. And I don't mean the wars only, but all the other shit, like racism (both ways), disrespect (or loathing) for the mentally ill and homosexuals, bickering between the religions and petty hatred for eachother on a day to day basis and so forth. A colleague of mine once said that we have to be like that, but I disagree. We still have a long way to go before all this is gone, and maybe then the beings from beyond will descend to earth. Personally I think that we have destroyed eachother before then.
--------------
Ost, nej tak!
--------------

> No WMD were found, but the threat was real: Saddam has supported terrorism,
> gassed his own people and the Iranians, violated his obligations, raped his
> country and refused to allow UN inspections for WMD. If you fought a bully
> who once brandished a knife, would you believe him when he said he no longer
> had that knife, and he would not let you check that the knife was gone?
> You do not seem so gullible.
Well the UN found something, it just wasnt found inside Iraq.

> I never saw Shirac shaking hands with Saddam on TV, and in fact, the American
> media is very anti-Bush--it has been widely reported that Rumsfeld went to
> Iraq when the US had hostages in Iran (and Iraq looked like it could help).
I never saw that either. Its a very liberal media that favors the democrats. Look at all the publicity Bill Clinton got in his scandal and impeachment proceedings. The media still showed him in a positive light. As for this election I think the top democrats are hoping that Kerry will lose. Why? Because that puts them in a great position 4 years from now. Bush will be termed out and Cheney wont run, and if he did he'd lose anyway. So as long as Bush wins this election the Presidency will be WIDE OPEN for the taking in 2008. It's rumored that Hilary Clinton may run.

> Evry country does what is best for them, I was saying that there is, in this
> case, a legal justification.
> You say the war is illegal, but you state it as opinion, with no facts to back
> it up. I admit no WMD have been found, but as I said, there were other legal
> grounds for the war. Why do you not respond to my arguments? Do you not
> remember the first Gulf war? The cease-fire agreement? The violations of
> that agreement? The UN imposed sanctions? The unanimous UN resolution that
> threatened action if Saddam would not comply with his obligations? Can you
> claim that these things did not happen?
> This has nothing to do with the legality of the war, you just don't like it so
> you have thrown it in, in an attempt to make the US look bad, but that doesn't
> make the war itself illegal.
Per UN Security Resolution 1441 & 687 it was quite legal indeed.

> Because you disagree with American foriegn policy you seem to think that you
> don't have to back up your arguments. Re-read my original post, then your
> response. You do not convince by simply stating opinions and pointing out
> things that you do not like. Tell me why my arguments are wrong.
I believe your arguments are quite correct.