Why is this an unjust war?

[Troll]

I've heard the claims of former presidents and UN folks that have had their share of wars go on. I've also had the chance to see some of the people here claim that it is unjust.

Well i don't have the access to some as I do to others, so I want the people here to tell me why they feel this war with Iraq is unjust.

Please use your own words and not quotes/talking points from others. be very specific and if you make a claim support it. I'm not grading on a curve here, people.

[bjornart]

If you shoot first, without evidence that the opponent has his finger on the trigger and is intending to shoot, it's unjust.

In the debate that recently fell apart some countries thought that Saddam had no immediate plans to shoot, others, for undisclosed reasons, claim he was an imminent threat. But they were all agreeing that his biggest toys should be taken from him, since he's been irresponsible in the past handling them.

An attack by a UN approved coalition, after exhausting peacefull alternatives, we also have been unjust. But it would have been internationally defensible.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by bjornart:
If you shoot first, without evidence that the opponent has his finger on the trigger and is intending to shoot, it's unjust.

In this case we know that the opponent has pulled the trigger on numerous ocasions before, and still has triggers to pull.


An attack by a UN approved coalition, after exhausting peacefull alternatives, we also have been unjust. But it would have been internationally defensible.

So the indefensible would have become defensible because Syria, Guinea and Cameroon said so?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by bjornart:
In this case we know that the opponent has pulled the trigger on numerous ocasions before, and still has triggers to pull.

This makes a case for 'imminent threat' better, but it isn't sufficient evidence for a present threat. He's started a couple of wars, been beaten, and then happily oppressed 'only' his own people for 12 years.


So the indefensible would have become defensible because Syria, Guinea and Cameroon said so?
Yes, but we're not particularly interested in those now, are we? It would have been more important that it would have been defensible to Germany, France, Russia and China.

Sorry for messing up your thread, Troll. ;)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by bjornart

It would have been more important that it would have been defensible to Germany, France, Russia and China.

Sorry for messing up your thread, Troll. ;)


Why is that? What about, say New Zealand, South Korea and India and Egypt?

I'm just going to edit this , because this was of course a rhetocrial question. I will just spell out my point.

This is just an extremely small, arbitrary group of countries, some in their present position by quirk of historic fate. How does their approval imply global moral or legal legitimacy, beyond the case that "those are the rules of the UN"

[metacristi]

Well i don't have the access to some as I do to others, so I want the people here to tell me why they feel this war with Iraq is unjust.


Simply put US has not been forced to enter in this war against Iraq;this war is not fortuitous given that Iraqi's military threat almost ceased to exist...Besides acting without the approval of UN it could be seen as an invasion on the same level with the Iraqi invasion of Kuweit in 1990.If UN were really what they should be then US should be punished also,indeed being the most powerful does not equal being automatically right.
Saddam is a dictator indeed,maybe he does possess WMD [many other countries do],but clearly there is no good reason derived from the international laws and acceptable for a majority of countries in the front of current evidence to start a war.International monitoring was enough,for the moment,to keep Saddam at bay.
This has nothing to do with the position of France or Germany,I'm not at all sure what their real reasons to oppose US were.My guess is that they had economic interests in Iraq and,especially,because,as usual,America put even her closest allies in the position of being simple pawns.

It's clear that other reasons are hidden behind the 'freedom of Iraq'...the majority of them favorizing primarily american interests...
I do not know whether this is true in US but in the rest of the world there was a wide debate over the real reasons of US to wage this war.Not very difficult to establish after all:

1.Economic reasons.Oil in principal and the 'reconstruction' of Iraq:the 'lion's share' will belong to US firms and will help boost the US economy severely hit after September 11.Also will be recovered the ground lost by the dollar in the 'fight' with the euro.

2.The desire to keep the actual status-quo of 'unipolarity';all must be warned that America is the only 'superpower'.No movement allowed 'in front' then,America is always right...

3.The 'absolute' security of America first,irrespective of other [legitimate] interests.Not all interests that diverges from american interests are 'evil',anyway no more evil than american usual actions...indeed there is no good reason to believe that Iraq planned to attack US...
I do not mean here terrorists,which indeed endangered US,but the interest of let's say France Germany,Russia,China and possible other countries which had no intention to attack US.Should US attack them too only because they are opposed to the American policy?

I'm not at all sure that the 'unipolarity status-quo' seeked by US is the best for the whole world...Indeed after the fall of Soviet Union this 'only superpower' became more and more agressive and arrogant;there is little difference from soviets' ambitions to dominate the world.Sadly US has turned into an Empire which seeks to impose his will no matter the means...The claim 'we have saved the Europe and theworld from nazi and communism' is not a sufficient reason to believe that US is always right.If US want approval for all it's actions in the virtue of this...
Maybe US is today 'the only superpower' maybe it is 'the peak of civilisation' but if it will continue on the same 'hard' line my prognostic is that it will fall from very high also...

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by bjornart:
Yes, but we're not particularly interested in those now, are we? It would have been more important that it would have been defensible to Germany, France, Russia and China.

Well they did approve Resolution 1441 which spelled out that Saddam would face "serious consequences" if he didn't disarm.

So why exactly does an indefensible course of action suddenly become defensible on the say so of four countries?

So were the airstrikes in the Balkans unjustified, considering no mandate was sought from the UN? What about the French military presence in the Ivory Coast?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Well they did approve Resolution 1441 which spelled out that Saddam would face "serious consequences" if he didn't disarm.

Yes, a resolution without a time frame, and without a specification of what those consequences were. This to make it possible for the security council to decide on them later, and not to write a carte blanche for the US.


So why exactly does an indefensible course of action suddenly become defensible on the say so of four countries?

Preferably it shouldn't. The security council and the veto powers of certain nations is a regrettable necessity to get a working international organisation. Flawed, yes, but essentially functional. Approval in that council would have meant most members of the UN would have accepted a war, regardless of the fine points of morality. (Which tend to be very fine indeed when one is defending war.) It's not some mysterious Truth, it's a simple fact of international politics. Or was.


So were the airstrikes in the Balkans unjustified, considering no mandate was sought from the UN? What about the French military presence in the Ivory Coast?
The airstrikes in the Balkans were a dangerous gamble, since Russia and China were opposed. (IIRC) In my eyes they were justified, because of the imminent nature of the problem. And they were less of a gamble than the current situation, since it happened within an existing allience, and not some half-arsed 'coalition of the willing'.
The French military presence in the Ivory Coast I know nothing about.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Drooper



Why is that? What about, say New Zealand, South Korea and India and Egypt?

I'm just going to edit this , because this was of course a rhetocrial question. I will just spell out my point.

This is just an extremely small, arbitrary group of countries, some in their present position by quirk of historic fate. How does their approval imply global moral or legal legitimacy, beyond the case that "those are the rules of the UN"

Let's ignore 'moral', it's highly individual and I've already pointed out my opinion doesn't involve the UN.
But global legitimacy has to a great degree been dependant on approval from the UN, or more specific from the security council. In my opinion this is a good thing. Altering this and trying to forge global legitimacy through other means is destabilising and, in my opinion, dangerous.
And yes, I would probably say 'd@mn the dangers' if I agreed with Bush' statements that Iraq poses an imminent threat. But I don't, and a large portion of the world's population don't either. Which doesn't meant it's more or less moral, morality isn't a popularity contest, but international law and stability in international politics is.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Bjornart:
Yes, a resolution without a time frame, and without a specification of what those consequences were.

So why did the "important" countries sign up for such a flawed resolution?

The security council and the veto powers of certain nations is a regrettable necessity to get a working international organisation.

I think it's quite clear that the UN doesn't work.

Approval in that council would have meant most members of the UN would have accepted a war, regardless of the fine points of morality.

But how do you know this, since the resoultion isn't put before all members, only those on the security council?

The airstrikes in the Balkans were a dangerous gamble, since Russia and China were opposed.

How was it a dangerous gamble? China and Russia didn't threaten serious consequences if NATO went ahead with the airstrikes, did they?

And they were less of a gamble than the current situation, since it happened within an existing allience, and not some half-arsed 'coalition of the willing'.

So France, Germany et al isn't a half arsed coalition of the willing?

Existing alliance? The "special relationship" between Britain and the US has endured since WWII.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by bjornart

But global legitimacy has to a great degree been dependant on approval from the UN, or more specific from the security council. In my opinion this is a good thing. Altering this and trying to forge global legitimacy through other means is destabilising and, in my opinion, dangerous.

"But global legitimacy has to a great degree been dependant on approval from the UN, or more specific from the security council. "

But you said it was MORE important to have German, French , Russian and Chinese approval.I take the view that the UNSC is arbitrary enough. But you take an even more arbitrary view of "global legitamacy".

I think you missed my point. You selected four countries, one of whom is on the UNSC by way of EU politics and the other three by quirk of historical fate and claim that they are the four deities upon which global legitamcy rests.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by metacristi



Simply put US has not been forced to enter in this war against Iraq;this war is not fortuitous given that Iraqi's military threat almost ceased to exist...Besides acting without the approval of UN it could be seen as an invasion on the same level with the Iraqi invasion of Kuweit in 1990.If UN were really what they should be then US should be punished also,indeed being the most powerful does not equal being automatically right.
Saddam is a dictator indeed,maybe he does possess WMD [many other countries do],but clearly there is no good reason derived from the international laws and acceptable for a majority of countries in the front of current evidence to start a war.International monitoring was enough,for the moment,to keep Saddam at bay.
This has nothing to do with the position of France or Germany,I'm not at all sure what their real reasons to oppose US were.My guess is that they had economic interests in Iraq and,especially,because,as usual,America put even her closest allies in the position of being simple pawns.

It's clear that other reasons are hidden behind the 'freedom of Iraq'...the majority of them favorizing primarily american interests...
I do not know whether this is true in US but in the rest of the world there was a wide debate over the real reasons of US to wage this war.Not very difficult to establish after all:

1.Economic reasons.Oil in principal and the 'reconstruction' of Iraq:the 'lion's share' will belong to US firms and will help boost the US economy severely hit after September 11.Also will be recovered the ground lost by the dollar in the 'fight' with the euro.

2.The desire to keep the actual status-quo of 'unipolarity';all must be warned that America is the only 'superpower'.No movement allowed 'in front' then,America is always right...

3.The 'absolute' security of America first,irrespective of other [legitimate] interests.Not all interests that diverges from american interests are 'evil',anyway no more evil than american usual actions...indeed there is no good reason to believe that Iraq planned to attack US...
I do not mean here terrorists,which indeed endangered US,but the interest of let's say France Germany,Russia,China and possible other countries which had no intention to attack US.Should US attack them too only because they are opposed to the American policy?

I'm not at all sure that the 'unipolarity status-quo' seeked by US is the best for the whole world...Indeed after the fall of Soviet Union this 'only superpower' became more and more agressive and arrogant;there is little difference from soviets' ambitions to dominate the world.Sadly US has turned into an Empire which seeks to impose his will no matter the means...The claim 'we have saved the Europe and theworld from nazi and communism' is not a sufficient reason to believe that US is always right.If US want approval for all it's actions in the virtue of this...
Maybe US is today 'the only superpower' maybe it is 'the peak of civilisation' but if it will continue on the same 'hard' line my prognostic is that it will fall from very high also...

Aren't you being a tad cynical?

In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and annexed it as the "17th province of Iraq." If the US or the UK annex Iraq you might have a point.

As far as the oil thing goes...If the oil is put in a UN fund for the rebuilding of Iraq as Blair has suggested will we hear no more of the inane chant, "No blood for oil!"?

Also, to compare the US to USSR in attempts to control you in Eastern Europe must see a bit of a difference. Hungary, Czechslovakia, and Poland all had tanks roll across them if they did not support the Soviets.

Have tanks been rolling across France and other countries that do not support the US?

BTW, I make no claim that the US saved Europe from the Nazis. We helped but the Soviets did the lion's share. As for the fall of communism, I do think that the US led containment ultimately forced it to fall due to "internal contradictions" as George Kennan once said.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

So why did the "important" countries sign up for such a flawed resolution?

Who says it's flawed? Not me. And not the 'important' countries.


I think it's quite clear that the UN doesn't work.

The UN isn't perfect. And it works as intended, except when its members chooses to ignore it. Hopefully international cooperation will survive this disagreement.


But how do you know this, since the resoultion isn't put before all members, only those on the security council?

I don't. It was an assumption. Toss in a 'likely' in the sentence that offended you.


How was it a dangerous gamble? China and Russia didn't threaten serious consequences if NATO went ahead with the airstrikes, did they?

Of course not, they weren't going to go to war over Serbia, and they're not going to go to war over Iraq. But every stone lobbed at the framework of international cooperation risks wrecking it.


So France, Germany et al isn't a half arsed coalition of the willing?

Do you mean F, G, et.al. as a group opposing war, or as members of the security council? That's what they did, opposed the war, as nations, and as members of the security council. They aren't a coalition at all.


Existing alliance? The "special relationship" between Britain and the US has endured since WWII.
Please ignore the following two sentences: "Special relationship"? You make it sound like some sordid love affair. :D

Does Britain and the US have a military alliance apart from NATO and the current coalition? If so I amend my statement to established alliances of at least five members.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by bjornart
If you shoot first, without evidence that the opponent has his finger on the trigger and is intending to shoot, it's unjust.

In the debate that recently fell apart some countries thought that Saddam had no immediate plans to shoot, others, for undisclosed reasons, claim he was an imminent threat. But they were all agreeing that his biggest toys should be taken from him, since he's been irresponsible in the past handling them.

An attack by a UN approved coalition, after exhausting peacefull alternatives, we also have been unjust. But it would have been internationally defensible.

9/11

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Drooper


"But global legitimacy has to a great degree been dependant on approval from the UN, or more specific from the security council. "

But you said it was MORE important to have German, French , Russian and Chinese approval.I take the view that the UNSC is arbitrary enough. But you take an even more arbitrary view of "global legitamacy".

I think you missed my point. You selected four countries, one of whom is on the UNSC by way of EU politics and the other three by quirk of historical fate and claim that they are the four deities upon which global legitamcy rests.

No I didn't. I admit that throwing in Germany was a Euro-centric blunder, but mentioning that approval from the three veto countries would have had more weight on the UNSC than approval from Syria, Guinea and Cameroon isn't 'arbitrary'.

They are not 'deities', they were the biggest fish in the UNSC pond after the US.

[Random]

Originally posted by rikzilla


9/11

The problem is, that there is no link between 9/11 and Saddam. There just isn’t anything there. We have spent millions looking for any link, and we've got nothing. But the White House administration has been relentlessly on message on this. Bush uses two sets of words in all of his speeches. “Saddam, Iraq, Weapons of mass destruction”, and “BinLaden, 9/11, AlQueda”. You can see him mixing and matching these words and phrases in all of his speeches. He uses them in different orders, crams the ideas into the same sentences and paragraphs, and stirs them all together every time a reporter asks him a question. To the uninformed viewer (and let’s face it, we Americans are not always the best informed about things) it seems like he is talking about one thing instead of two.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by bjornart


No I didn't. I admit that throwing in Germany was a Euro-centric blunder, but mentioning that approval from the three veto countries would have had more weight on the UNSC than approval from Syria, Guinea and Cameroon isn't 'arbitrary'.

They are not 'deities', they were the biggest fish in the UNSC pond after the US.

Yes you did. And I quote....YOU....

Originally posted by bjornart
It would have been more important that it would have been defensible to Germany, France, Russia and China

As I indicated in an earlier post, the approval of Frqance, China and Russia as permanent members of the UNSC would have been MORE important from the POV of UN procedure only.

------
start edit
I am just editing this in to show that you are arguing that France, Russia and China are important in terms of a concept of "global legitimacy", not just UNSC procedure of passing a resolution:
Originally posted by bjornart
But global legitimacy has to a great degree been dependant on approval from the UN, or more specific from the security council
(my emphasis)
end edit
------


It is just not possible to get away from the fact that you are holding up three countries who hold archaic rights by some historical quirk of fate. To say that "global legitamacy" rests on their support is absurd. that is why the UN is a complete nonsense as an enforcer of truth justice blah blah blah.

I am not making some partisan argument here. If the situation was reversed and the US and UK refused to support (and promised to veto) a UNSC resolution in opposition to France, Russia and China, that wouldn't imply a lack of global legitamacy. It would only mean that two arbitrary countries had the procedural clout to kill it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Random, and slightly modified in the interests of accuracy


The problem is, that there is no concrete link between 9/11 and Saddam yet known.

Truth is, the first WTC bombing was done by Iraqi intel officer Ramzi Yusef....later captured after it came to light that he was working with Abu Sayeef in the Philipines to bomb 11 US airliners in a single day.

Abu Sayeef is al Qaida. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed...the #3 man in Al Qaida is Ramzi Yusef's uncle.

Ramzi Yusef and Khalid Sheikh Muhammed were captured with documents that have become a terrorist standard; Official Kuwaiti passports that can be traced back to documents stolen from Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation in 1991.

Soon, when the Mukhabarrat files fall into allied hands, there will be much, much evidence of stuff we can only guess at.

It would be well to revisit this thread then...in the days to come.

I stand by my posting of "9/11" in response to the question of "just war". I may be wrong....but if I am even slightly right 9/11 will only be the tip of the terrorism iceberg.

-zilla

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Bjornart:
Who says it's flawed? Not me. And not the 'important' countries.

Your exact words were: "Yes, a resolution without a time frame, and without a specification of what those consequences were"

The resolution was full of ambiguities. Perhaps you don't think so, but I believe that makes it inherently flawed. The French seem to believe a second resolution is needed, yet the Spanish PM differs.

The UN isn't perfect. And it works as intended, except when its members chooses to ignore it.

Like Iraq? This is where the UN fails, where a member country ignores resolution after resolution, and the UN lacks the capability and/or the will to enforce it's resolutions.

Of course not, they weren't going to go to war over Serbia, and they're not going to go to war over Iraq. But every stone lobbed at the framework of international cooperation risks wrecking it.

But isn't this exactly what Saddam has been doing with each and every resolution ignored? What about the French, don't you believe that there threatened use of their veto is "a stone lobbed at the framework of international cooperation" that "risks wrecking it"?

Do you mean F, G, et.al. as a group opposing war, or as members of the security council? That's what they did, opposed the war, as nations, and as members of the security council. They aren't a coalition at all.

So what differenciates them from the US, UK and Spain, who support the war as nations and as members of the security council? What makes these countries a "half arsed coalition" and not the the countries opposing?

Please ignore the following two sentences: "Special relationship"? You make it sound like some sordid love affair :D

Not my choice of words, but the term used to describe the partnership between Britain and America since the war.

Does Britain and the US have a military alliance apart from NATO and the current coalition? If so I amend my statement to established alliances of at least five members.

A de facto one within NATO. The UK and the US carry by far the most military weight within NATO, are the only two members of the alliance with nuclear capability (the French being semi-detached members of the alliance with an independent nuclear deterrent) and provide most of the firepower in any NATO led action.

[Troll]

Originally posted by bjornart
If you shoot first, without evidence that the opponent has his finger on the trigger and is intending to shoot, it's unjust.

In the debate that recently fell apart some countries thought that Saddam had no immediate plans to shoot, others, for undisclosed reasons, claim he was an imminent threat. But they were all agreeing that his biggest toys should be taken from him, since he's been irresponsible in the past handling them.

An attack by a UN approved coalition, after exhausting peacefull alternatives, we also have been unjust. But it would have been internationally defensible.

So one must stand around and allow themselves to be hit first before they can fight a just war?

Would you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace."

[c0rbin]

To further support Rikzilla here...

I stand by my posting of "9/11" in response to the question of "just war". I may be wrong....but if I am even slightly right 9/11 will only be the tip of the terrorism iceberg.

Bush may be a bit mush-mouthed, but the policy has been clear from the start: terrorists and the countries that support them and their actions.

Saddam needn't fly a plane into a building, or plant a bomb personally to crash a plane into a neighborhood in Scotland, or carry a bomb into a night club, or drive a truck into a military base--he only needs to aid and abet.

Terrorism undermines the law of the land--as does playing footsy with the UN on the subject of chem/bio/nuc weapons.

There is sympathy for Iraq, as their should be. Those people have been herded within their boarders by a mad sheppard.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
What about the French military presence in the Ivory Coast? Silly! Ivory Coast is a colony of France! The French are perfectly free to camp their military there, and decide who the rulers should be.

[metacristi]

Mike B.

Hmm,this site was down in the last two days,I was not able to access it.I hope this is not because of some ideas presented on this forum...after all they are simple opinions nothing more.And words do not kill.
Maybe my words were too strong,I apologize for that,but the criticism still stands.I understand your patriotism to some extent but not to the extent to renounce logic for that [I remember reading somewhere on the net (paraphrased):'I don't remember to have seen another country in the world where a waving flag plays such an iconographical role'].Patriotism patriotism but not with all price.Even if US will live even better after certain militar actions as this in Irak.What is good for US might very well not be so for a majority of other countries.I have the impression that in the american society it is 'ingrained' [probable a side effect of the cold war] the belief that american actions are always inherently good so that almost no one question them or see an ideology here.I only hope that those who have the courage to oppose such actions won't suffer because of their alleged 'lack of patriotism'. If they do then the trumpeted model of american democracy is no more than a facade...

I do not believe in the 'virgin America' mith.It would be better to recognize the mistakes of the past and restrain the interventionism abroad which a main constant of american policy after WW2.If during the cold war such actions were accepted tacitly by the other countries [always choose the smaller 'evil'] after the fall of Soviet Union such unilateral actions are unacceptable for the international community:american interests very often do not coincide with the interest of the majority of the countries in the world.Imposing them wars with force does not help too much too improve the american image [that of an agressive empire] abroad.Today Irak tomorrow ?,possible a country which is more democratic than USA.As far as I see America guides only upon their interests of the moment.The 'defence of democracy' slogan is dust in the people's eyes...after the fall of communism such 'explanations' ceased to impress the others,we all know that America has her interests which very often have nothing to do with the ideological system as much as she controls firmly the things...

Many of the most irrational dictators are creations of America herself.Including Saddam Hussein seen in the 80-th as a useful tool in their fight against Iran's mullahs.Not to mention Ossama bin Laden or Noriega who both 'graduated' the CIA 'school'.With such a policy it is strange that USA accuse the others for her own previous mistakes...

[crocodile deathroll]

Bush was so eager to go to war because the weather was beginnig to warm up and he felt that at temperatures frequently 50°C (120°F) in the shade in mid summer it would be too xxxxing hot for his troops to fight. Period

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by metacristi
Mike B.

Hmm,this site was down in the last two days,I was not able to access it.I hope this is not because of some ideas presented on this forum...after all they are simple opinions nothing more.And words do not kill.
Maybe my words were too strong,I apologize for that,but the criticism still stands.I understand your patriotism to some extent but not to the extent to renounce logic for that [I remember reading somewhere on the net (paraphrased):'I don't remember to have seen another country in the world where a waving flag plays such an iconographical role'].Patriotism patriotism but not with all price.Even if US will live even better after certain militar actions as this in Irak.What is good for US might very well not be so for a majority of other countries.I have the impression that in the american society it is 'ingrained' [probable a side effect of the cold war] the belief that american actions are always inherently good so that almost no one question them or see an ideology here.I only hope that those who have the courage to oppose such actions won't suffer because of their alleged 'lack of patriotism'. If they do then the trumpeted model of american democracy is no more than a facade...

I do not believe in the 'virgin America' mith.It would be better to recognize the mistakes of the past and restrain the interventionism abroad which a main constant of american policy after WW2.If during the cold war such actions were accepted tacitly by the other countries [always choose the smaller 'evil'] after the fall of Soviet Union such unilateral actions are unacceptable for the international community:american interests very often do not coincide with the interest of the majority of the countries in the world.Imposing them wars with force does not help too much too improve the american image [that of an agressive empire] abroad.Today Irak tomorrow ?,possible a country which is more democratic than USA.As far as I see America guides only upon their interests of the moment.The 'defence of democracy' slogan is dust in the people's eyes...after the fall of communism such 'explanations' ceased to impress the others,we all know that America has her interests which very often have nothing to do with the ideological system as much as she controls firmly the things...

Many of the most irrational dictators are creations of America herself.Including Saddam Hussein seen in the 80-th as a useful tool in their fight against Iran's mullahs.Not to mention Ossama bin Laden or Noriega who both 'graduated' the CIA 'school'.With such a policy it is strange that USA accuse the others for her own previous mistakes...


Unfortunately most Americans are just like those on this board. Most Americans believe that questioning the government is a bad "un-American" thing to do. For example, living in America, one of my most cherished rights is the right to say "President Bush is a complete and utter moron who should never be put in charge of anything. Why, oh why, are we stuck with this fool leading our country?" If I say this in public many other Americans will tell me that I should "get out of their country" or some such.

Too many Americans are under-educated fools who know nothing about the world or its politics. They don't understand what the constitution was (or is) or what our rights truly represent. Most of us can't even give a concrete answer as to why we are even attacking Iraq. Most people even believe we are "at war", which we are not. War requires a declaration of war. There is no war, just America attacking Iraq.

And lots of us Americans that have a grasp of the outside world are worried about where it will end. If we should attack Iraq because they are a threat to us then what about other countries that are a threat to us? How much of a threat do other countries have to be before we just attack them?

These are questions that should be preying on the mind of all Americans. They certainly seem to be on the minds of the rest of the world.

One of my rights guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution is the right to free speech. So if I want to go into my front yard and burn the American flag I have that right, but most Americans want that right taken away. I have, in fact, burned the flag. Not as a protest to any war or any policy, but as a protest to limits being placed on my right to free speech. It didn't go over very well. The police even showed up and told me that I shouldn't create a scene, and if I did create such a scene they may try to arrest me for disturbing the peace.

Here is a nice comic that sums it up:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14632

I must say I was sorely disssapointed at the level of argument in these forums. I hoped for better.