Power Rangers...

[Menschenfresser]

Please, tell me, my dear French friend, what have France done to encourage the spread of democracy? I tell you, France has not overthrown a dictator

I think the jury is still out on whether forceably overthrowing dictators encourages democracy. And just so you don't jump right back at me...elections don't equal democracy. We're talking democracy in the long term.

 

[Martin Schenkel]

Middle East is our area, why should you dare to force America to ask for permission?

The Middle East isn't your area. It belongs to the middle easteners.

 

[viridomaros]

what a "hot" thread
cheetah seems to be alone against all

i can understand you cheetah, i agree with you when you said it was needed to put saddam "out of power". without any doubts, this man has prooved to be one cruel dictator and i think no one will tell the contrary.
i think european union should have gone to iraq to help the americans ( only the spanish and the poles decided to send soldiers) now it is clear that all the countries forming european union cannot agree on such "hot" situations

but what i don't like with USA is that a part of the americans ( soldiers,politics and so on) act like cowboy, they used "big weapons" when it was not needed. i remember the journalist telling that iraq's army was the fourth of the world, i haver never tought it was true because when i looked at the pictures shown by the same journalist of the iraqi army: many were civilians with ak47 or roquette launcher, the regular soldiers i saw were very young, may be too young to realise what the situation was. seeing this i think it was not needed to send a lot of high tech missiles everywhere.
my feeling is that sometimes USA do too much when it is not needed.

i don't agree also with how they help the iraqi people to rebuild the country
because giving them money doesn't help a lot, i would have prefered some enterprises to come ( only enterprises coming from the country which had participated to operation freedom) and to engage iraqi for rebuilding their country, also to put a good educational system is really urgent.
USA think they can do all because of the money, that's not that true
and i don't agree with you cheetah when you say middle-east is ours
because it belongs to middle-easteners as martin schenkel pointed out.
but i think USA as the superpower of the world should rule the planet as they do now, this is a great advantage for you but you have to act for the world's interest ( to definite these doesn't seem easy, i must admit) and not only for american's interest.

to talk about something else than iraq, i personnaly think that USA are wrong about not joining environemental treaties such as kyoto, because their industry is not ready to accept it they refuse to join, and as they are the number 1 for pollution other countries which pollute a lot don't want to join the treaty, USA just doesn't give the good example.


To end this, i think USA have a difficult task in rulling the whole world and i think that other countries such as france, belgium, russia, canada and so on should try to help the USA by using the diplomacy at his best. i don't like the fact that france vetoed the vote to the UN for the intervention in iraq, it just didn't help and furthermore we lost a opportunity of having a little control on the USA intervention, the only thing it did is to prove that UN are no longer helpfull
i know it wasn't that helpfull since it has been created, but i think it was better than nothing and unless france (the rest of european union too, including my country) has something better to replace it, it is better to keep it and to try to improve it as much as we can.
we have reached a point where a lot of people realised what the world is now ( it is possible to communicate with a lot of people just a look at this website)
it is just a shame that knowing all the opportunities to make it better we just can't agree together
i hope to have offended no one with this if so, i apologized for this

 

[MikeJ]

The "new" argument? Just what are you talking about?

I've said all along it was for two primary reasons: the elimination of Iraqi WMD programs and the liberation of Iraqi people. That isn't a new argument, it's the same old I've been using for ages.

I bet the numbers of Iraqi casualties you got were from some radical left-wing websites claiming all sorts of documentation and evidence that the United States did indeed mess up a lot. For the record, I don't think 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, or 10,000 civilians for that matter. I believe the real number lies somewhere less than 5,000 or perhaps high as 7,000 casualties. American armed forces are not a bunch of thugs wildly killing everything in sight.

We are not scarificing Iraqi lives, we are scarificing American lives so that Iraqis may at last taste the freedom and the WMD threats Iraq did at one point possessed are no more. Saddam will never return to the power. Indeed, I do honestly feel safer now that Americans are in Iraq. No longer, I have to worry about what will happen down the road for the next 12 years like we did preceding the Iraqi Operation Freedom.

Do you seriously believe that the United States is in for profits? Man, you do need a lot of rewiring if you let conspiracy theories float around a lot inside your head.

Dan

*looks for an answer to his question*

Can't say I'm surprised that you managed to write all that and avoid answering a very simple question, so I'll just ask it again and see if you can answer it this time...

If sacrificing some lives (I don't care whose lives, it is wholly irrelevant here) for the the greater good is okay, is letting something like 9/11 happen acceptable if 9/11 proves to be a great boon for American power/economics/etc? What about dropping the nukes on Japan? Was that okay? I mean it probably saved lives and sent a clear message to the USSR not to screw with America. Worth it?

 

[Cheetah772]

*looks for an answer to his question*

Can't say I'm surprised that you managed to write all that and avoid answering a very simple question, so I'll just ask it again and see if you can answer it this time...

If sacrificing some lives (I don't care whose lives, it is wholly irrelevant here) for the the greater good is okay, is letting something like 9/11 happen acceptable if 9/11 proves to be a great boon for American power/economics/etc? What about dropping the nukes on Japan? Was that okay? I mean it probably saved lives and sent a clear message to the USSR not to screw with America. Worth it?

To be perfectly honest with you, I was just rambling on with my pro-American sentiments.

Anyway, to answer your question bluntly, no. If I knew what was going to happen, I would have done everything in my power to stop the WTC attacks.

Granted, this would leave Saddam in power in hindsight. Maybe so. But what had happened is a done deal.

As for nuking two Japanese cities, yes, it was worth the price.

Anyway, I will expound my comments a little more when I am done with my class. In fact, my class starts in five minutes.

Have a nice day, MikeJ.

Dan

 

[Deltapooh]

I have a question for our non-American forum viewers, "what exactly do you expect from the US?" While I'm certain many people have an answer for that, it likely isn't "the" answer.

The international community often send mixed signals to America. I believe Kennedy once said, "it's damned if we do and damned if we don't," when it comes to our relationship with the rest of the world. And he was probably right.

On the one hand, the world is concerned about American imperalism. They are equally disappointed about how little respect we tend to extend to them. The world wants to be treated more like an equal and less like an subord-inate. By working through international organizations like the United Nations, America would be promoting equilibrium and deterring imperalism.

At the same rate, the US is expected to maintain favorable conditions for the world in general. We are often defined as a country with almost endless resources. (We stroke this ideal at times.) Countries continue to pursue mutual interest with America in part because it saves alot of money and blood. Besides, we can afford it......or so peole think.

In the 1950's and 1960's, the CIA ran amuk handing out weapons and cash to anyone who said they supported democracy. While this was frowned upon, most governments saw it as the price of doing business. Bush has pulled the cover off the secret strategy that has proven effective time and again. Worse still, he seems to be demanding the world participate in the bloody side of ensuring Western stability. Now everyone wants to "get brand new" even though in all honesty most people would agree here are few other options than the one that involves killing people and breaking things. The inadvertently seems to demand the US maintain and promote decromacy in a clearer fashion that is truly unrealistic.

It's no fluke of nature that both Bush and Clinton campaigned on promises of international disengagement. Both also assumed great risk by electing to abandon these strategies. They had different reasons, which appealed to one group more than the other. Both emerged from those policies in part because the international community demanded it in some form or the other.

Most Americans would like nothing more than to tell the world to leave us alone, and go solve your own problems. Yet, that belief is undermined by the reality of our importance in the world.

I am not trying to mitigate the vital role the world played in all the good that has developed in the past 60yrs. I am strong believer in internationalism and cherish our alliances with the world, and sacrifice so many make everyday. Whether it is in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Bosnia, or Kosovo, troops from different countries are chewing the same mud.

Instead, the point I'm trying to establish is we are all benifactors of American foriegn policy. Now that you see it is messy, does little to undermine the neccesary crap we often mold into peace. If you want America to work with through the UN, tell your elected representatives to stop making backroom deals with the US. If you want be truly innocent, let Saddam out of jail, appoint him your president, and let him brutalize your country to the third generation, so the unborn can have clean hands and a dirty mouth directed at those who cared more about the appearance of righteousness than the qualities that define right.

Again, I wish not to offend any country or the sacrifices they've made.

 

[JAMiAM]

... Now everyone wants to "get brand new" even though in all honesty most people would agree here are few other options than the one that involves killing people and breaking things. The inadvertently seems to demand the US maintain and promote decromacy in a clearer fashion that is truly unrealistic..

Could you explain this a bit more clearly, Deltapooh? Part of my problem is undoubtedly that I made the mistake of reading this before I had my morning coffee, and thus had your typo "decromacy" morph into necromancy, totally screwing up my first take on it. However, a number of subsequent rereadings are not doing much to clarify, in my mind, what I think you might be trying to say.

 

[Cheetah772]

Could you explain this a bit more clearly, Deltapooh? Part of my problem is undoubtedly that I made the mistake of reading this before I had my morning coffee, and thus had your typo "decromacy" morph into necromancy, totally screwing up my first take on it. However, a number of subsequent rereadings are not doing much to clarify, in my mind, what I think you might be trying to say.

That doesn't surprise me.

What Deltapooh means is that sometimes a war may be unavoidable if we want another country to embrace the democracy. Or to protect the one's national interests.

The wars are merely a sort of transition between the periods of diplomacy. Not everything is going to work out peacefully. After all, the United States was born out of the war of independence, or have you truly forgotten that? Sad, isn't it?

I'm sure you want to cooperate with the British Empire of 1776 in the name of "cooperation"? Oh my, what a joke you are!

Dan

 

[Cheetah772]

what a "hot" thread
cheetah seems to be alone against all

i can understand you cheetah, i agree with you when you said it was needed to put saddam "out of power". without any doubts, this man has prooved to be one cruel dictator and i think no one will tell the contrary.
i think european union should have gone to iraq to help the americans ( only the spanish and the poles decided to send soldiers) now it is clear that all the countries forming european union cannot agree on such "hot" situations

Could you please tell that to France and Germany, after all, they're the most powerful EU members?

The problem isn't their cowardiance, I don't think the Europe is a bunch of chickens despite my usual references to them as "sissycats" of the world, the problem is that they can't see past the diplomacy. They are so afraid of what will happen if the diplomacy fails. After all, they have the stigma of two world wars, they are afraid of what will happen if the diplomacy doesn't work and a war will be entirely unavoidable.

The Europe is desperately searching for ways to legitimatize the wars, the problem is that the wars are not legitimate, they are not the tools of courts, they are the tools of foreign policy to be used cautiously. A war doesn't need to be justified at all, it only needs to be suited for our interests. That is what America is doing right now. Bush didn't need justifications, he only need to explain the whys and let the national interests take over, that's it.

It would be a good idea to stop trying to legitimatize the war, it's just not gonna work out like that.

but what i don't like with USA is that a part of the americans ( soldiers,politics and so on) act like cowboy, they used "big weapons" when it was not needed. i remember the journalist telling that iraq's army was the fourth of the world, i haver never tought it was true because when i looked at the pictures shown by the same journalist of the iraqi army: many were civilians with ak47 or roquette launcher, the regular soldiers i saw were very young, may be too young to realise what the situation was. seeing this i think it was not needed to send a lot of high tech missiles everywhere.
my feeling is that sometimes USA do too much when it is not needed.

Had the European Union been more aggressive and possessed a formadible army, do you think EU would be less inclined to play the "cowboy"? I think not.

If that were to happen, I can assume you that EU will return to the old European policy preceding the Second World War, using the force as a tool of foreign policy. France is starting to show that in her African adventures if only in small size or scope.

Just because the EU prefers the use of economic influence and diplomacy doesn't mean the EU will refuse to use the force in the future dealings. A benevolent country doesn't usually last that very long in the course of human history.

to talk about something else than iraq, i personnaly think that USA are wrong about not joining environemental treaties such as kyoto, because their industry is not ready to accept it they refuse to join, and as they are the number 1 for pollution other countries which pollute a lot don't want to join the treaty, USA just doesn't give the good example.

The Koyoto Pact would put onerous burden onto America alone. This is not fair. In fact, I doubt most of the European countries are absiding by this treaty as well. Why would Americans want to join with the rest of world in hypocrisy?

The Koyoto Pact is meant to reduce American economic competition. This is absurd.

I could care less about enivronmentalism, I think it's way overrated. I would rather to have America to be more self-sufficent and self-reliant in developing her own natural resources if that meant less dependency on the world.

To end this, i think USA have a difficult task in rulling the whole world and i think that other countries such as france, belgium, russia, canada and so on should try to help the USA by using the diplomacy at his best. i don't like the fact that france vetoed the vote to the UN for the intervention in iraq, it just didn't help and furthermore we lost a opportunity of having a little control on the USA intervention, the only thing it did is to prove that UN are no longer helpfull
i know it wasn't that helpfull since it has been created, but i think it was better than nothing and unless france (the rest of european union too, including my country) has something better to replace it, it is better to keep it and to try to improve it as much as we can.
we have reached a point where a lot of people realised what the world is now ( it is possible to communicate with a lot of people just a look at this website)
it is just a shame that knowing all the opportunities to make it better we just can't agree together
i hope to have offended no one with this if so, i apologized for this

Seriously, I think the United Nations already proved to be an inefficient international organization right from the beginning. 2/3 of the world remains in the hands of dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. 2/3 of world has an innate hatred of the Western Civilization and America, no matter how much we want to change, it will always hate us. 2/3 of the world want to see America removed once for all. 2/3 of the world want to see America to be the puppet of the United Nations.

Clearly, the majority rule isn't going to cut out.

I think we should resume the old system of nation-states. After all, for the last 5,000 years, the human race successfully prospered without any aid of the international organizations. Why must we stop at this point?

It just doesn't make any sense.

Dan

 

[Menschenfresser]

I think we should resume the old system of nation-states.

Contrary to conservative public opinion, the concept of a nation-state isn't that old. Some European states were still grappling with it in the 20th century.

 

[Deltapooh]

Could you explain this a bit more clearly, Deltapooh? Part of my problem is undoubtedly that I made the mistake of reading this before I had my morning coffee, and thus had your typo "decromacy" morph into necromancy, totally screwing up my first take on it. However, a number of subsequent rereadings are not doing much to clarify, in my mind, what I think you might be trying to say.

As Cheetah suggested, the transition from one political ideal to democracy (or any other for that matter) often involves violence. Democracy overall received a hefty boost from WWII. Communism also expanded as a result of that conflict. The US employed violence on many occassions to promote democracy in the last 50 or 60 years. While people might want to forget it, many of those operations were known to our allies who either chose to ignore developments, if not support it directly.

I feel alot of people want to forget just how violent global peace can be. The only reason the US, Western Europe, and Canada are experiencing so much prosperity is because our foundation is built upon millions of dead people. Try though they might, expanding peace will first require the elimination of opposition to it, which in turn leads to violence.

 

[LaPalice]

I have a question for our non-American forum viewers, "what exactly do you expect from the US?" While I'm certain many people have an answer for that, it likely isn't "the" answer.

The international community often send mixed signals to America. I believe Kennedy once said, "it's damned if we do and damned if we don't," when it comes to our relationship with the rest of the world. And he was probably right.

The problem is maybe in the fact that you see the international community as a whole when in fact there are several groups, groups being not definitive, able to change according to the situation. Look at Iraq : was the international community against of for the invasion ? No one in fact because the international community hadn’t the same opinion, some parts was for the invasion, Great Britain, Spain, Italy… when other parts was against the war, France, Germany, Russia… Yesterday France wasn’t right with the United States, today she says that she could be right under certain conditions, and maybe tomorrow she will be right with the United States.
What I want to say is that it is not the International Community against the USA and her allies, it is not the rest of the world against the USA. There is a part which is right, and another one which is not. And for a lot of country it is very complicate, when the government was for the invasion when the public opinion wasn’t.
Otherwise what do I except from US ? that she doesn’t pose a problem to my country’s interest. Why I was against the invasion of Iraq ? Because the United State want everything for them and see there only her own interest. Even if France had came and had participated in the war, she would have received nothing. I don’t care that the United States goes to Iraq for the control of oil, the problem is in the fact that France, Europe, can’t have nothing if the Americans have their hand on the Middle East. If the US control the Middle East they control Europe, and I don’t like that because they can force Europe to do want they want even if it is not in the European interests.

LaPalice.

 

[Minaya]

The problem is maybe in the fact that you see the international community as a whole when in fact there are several groups, groups being not definitive, able to change according to the situation. Look at Iraq : was the international community against of for the invasion ? No one in fact because the international community hadn’t the same opinion, some parts was for the invasion, Great Britain, Spain, Italy… when other parts was against the war, France, Germany, Russia…

I agree about this complexity. But I have to point that Spain was not exactly for the invasion. The government was. Polls showed that 90% (yes, 90%) of Spanish population were against it. And public demonstrations proved it. This is the case that you pointed:

And for a lot of country it is very complicate, when the government was for the invasion when the public opinion wasn’t.

 

[Cheetah772]

I agree about this complexity. But I have to point that Spain was not exactly for the invasion. The government was. Polls showed that 90% (yes, 90%) of Spanish population were against it. And public demonstrations proved it. This is the case that you pointed:

Then I guess the Europe is in love with dictators.

If the Europe wanted America to get rid of Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, a brutal dictator who supported ethnic cleansings of Croatians and Bosnians, then please tell me how come getting rid of Saddam, a greater threat to the world than Milosevic, doesn't get the nod from the Europe?

It's quite embarrassing that the Europe has to ask America to clean up the mess! For Christ's sake, the Europe has several thousand years of experience in warfare, yeah, you do make warfare a serious business enterprise. After all, the Europe had gone through two world wars with some of the best armed forces in 20th century.

Yet, you whine like a baby, crying for American help in Balkans crisis, but scream like a girl when Americans want to clean up their own mess in Iraq by removing Saddam and eliminating WMD threats.

Come on, don't be so hypocritical. You keep saying the war is wrong based partly on humanitarian reasons, you're going in circles on this one. You couldn't weasel out of that circle even if your life depended upon it.

At times, I think Europe is just a bunch of sickos. I don't know, maybe I should be ashamed of my Hungarian heritage. I am sick of Europe crying like a bunch of babies.

Dan

 

[Minaya]

Yet, you whine like a baby, crying for American help in Balkans crisis, but scream like a girl when Americans want to clean up their own mess in Iraq by removing Saddam and eliminating WMD threats.

What WMD? Finally they appeared?

 

[Cheetah772]

What WMD? Finally they appeared?

Slobodan Milosevic didn't have WMDs, yet, much of Europe wanted to get rid of him by using American troops to save Europe a lot of grief and time.

Yet, you demand to see some evidence of WMD threats in Iraq, completely ignoring Saddam's brutal dictatorship! Isn't that hypocritical of you?

Like I said, you couldn't weasel out of that hypocritical circle.

Besides, if given enough time like 12 years, I'm pretty sure we will find hidden WMDs in Iraq. Saddam also had personal ambitions of pursuing WMD programs, even with economic sanctions and "containment" working, you couldn't dampen his thirst for such weapons. He would sell out his family if he thought he could get his hand on one of WMDs.

Comparing Slobodan Milosevic to Saddam, please tell me where is the justification, if you refuse to see beyond for what they are, brutal dictators who should be removed forcefully if needed?

If you want the justification for what America for Europe in Balkans Crisis, then you're going to have to give one for what we did in Iraq as well. You can't have it both ways, buddy.

Dan

 

[JAMiAM]

Quoted from the article...

What the Bush doctrine calls for—paradoxically, given its proponents—is a form of world government.​

The incredible irony of this statement is clear when you see arguments like Cheetah's that simultaneously decry the impositions that the UN may place on the US, while at the same time trumpeting a different New World Order. One that dictated by the US, enforced by their military, or the threat thereof, and imposed upon the rest of the world.

It is dizzyingly absurd that one should complain out of one side of his mouth that the UN is somehow stifling the US, yet out of the other side whines that it can never accomplish anything. Like any form of government, the amount of power it wields is directly proportional to the amount of credence that those who accept its dictates, grant it.

 

[Cheetah772]

Quoted from the article...

What the Bush doctrine calls for—paradoxically, given its proponents—is a form of world government.​

The incredible irony of this statement is clear when you see arguments like Cheetah's that simultaneously decry the impositions that the UN may place on the US, while at the same time trumpeting a different New World Order. One that dictated by the US, enforced by their military, or the threat thereof, and imposed upon the rest of the world.

It is dizzyingly absurd that one should complain out of one side of his mouth that the UN is somehow stifling the US, yet out of the other side whines that it can never accomplish anything. Like any form of government, the amount of power it wields is directly proportional to the amount of credence that those who accept its dictates, grant it.

I don't know whether to laugh or not at your statement.

The United Nations is a world government of sorts. Whereas the United States is a nation-state. It does not impose a kind of US-sponsored world government. If it were so, then don't you think the US could invade the continent of Europe or make it suffer economically? Please.

The United Nations is stifling the United States by claiming the legitimacy and wanted to keep America on a short leash by some binding resolutions. The United Nations wants the United States to put the world's interests first, then hers second. This is how I see the UN stifling the USA. The UN is refusing to acknowledge that the US is a legitimate superpower and be able to dictate how she goes about in her own interests instead of the world's.

Yet, on the same hand, the UN claimed to be wanting to uphold some concept of democracy and humane treatments. It failed to achieve this. It failed to step in and stopping the atrocities witnessed all over the world. It failed in a lot of things.

No, it is not contradictory, it is a fact.

Dan

 

[jlbetin]

Then I guess the Europe is in love with dictators.

Enough to put some in power Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Pétain Quisling and many others
But yours are IBM FORD BOEING General Electric, Standart Oil EXXON, and many others. And the only rule they knows is MONEY, and they can't be removed by a vote or a democratic revolution
(I would preffer a more bloodiest one, Lenine, Trosky and Staline with us )

If the Europe wanted America to get rid of Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, a brutal dictator who supported ethnic cleansings of Croatians and Bosnians, then please tell me how come getting rid of Saddam, a greater threat to the world than Milosevic, doesn't get the nod from the Europe?

It's quite embarrassing that the Europe has to ask America to clean up the mess! For Christ's sake, the Europe has several thousand years of experience in warfare, yeah, you do make warfare a serious business enterprise. After all, the Europe had gone through two world wars with some of the best armed forces in 20th century.

European people were in bosnia before US one and many French soldiers have been killed there.

3 main problems in Balkan area

1st) conditions of fire use define by UN for interposition forces were too much restrictive, and Chirac when he was president bypass this and ordered French soldiers to bombard all Serbian position as long as snippers will fire and shell on Muslim part of Sarayevo. But it was inside UN force and not an unilateral action as in IRAQ

2nd) European forces at this time ( 1993-1998) were mainly manned by Concripts and not enough professional forces could be involved. The strongest one at this time were the US one. Iit is why we were not abble to do things without you
BUT NOW due to this THE EU is now creating its own army apart from NATO to count only on their own in case of US changing is mind. Cheetah remember 1918 and 1921 with US ready to warranty the Versailles treaty and US senate refusing to sign it HUMMMM, did you remember this small detail?

3rd) You are lucky in US you are far from any critical war area and Except the 9/11 never your soil have under direct enemy fire. We in europe have not only been in concern with 2 WW but war is ours since Thousands of years.
Balkans are the worst geostrategical part of europe since the 12th century.
WE HAVE an Historical knowledge about this zone that you will never have. Screws that in your mind.
Christ 1st WW begin there and WW2 is a daughter of this WWI balkanic crisis.
European Diplomats knows better than you that there is a powder barrel ready to explode. To maintain balance there is an difficult art.

In 1995 The European known that this conflict could generate a European conflict between Slaves and western people, don't you learn Panslavism in school. Did you remember the Russian airborne units coming in Urge in Yougoslavia even before US, WHY DEAR CONSERVATIVE -> HISTORY AGAIN, to protect their Slavian brothers.

Yet, you whine like a baby, crying for American help in Balkans crisis, but scream like a girl when Americans want to clean up their own mess in Iraq by removing Saddam and eliminating WMD threats.

Come on, don't be so hypocritical. You keep saying the war is wrong based partly on humanitarian reasons, you're going in circles on this one. You couldn't weasel out of that circle even if your life depended upon it.

At times, I think Europe is just a bunch of sickos. I don't know, maybe I should be ashamed of my Hungarian heritage. I am sick of Europe crying like a bunch of babies.

Dan

YES it is why now the Rumsfell and other Chenay are so affraid of the idea of an independant EU force and have tried so hard to block the creation of an independant EU command HeadQuarter.

AS LAPALICE TOLD we are affraid that your actual governement acting like Western Cowboys put a big mess in world and we in Europe we take the rap.

I'm more confident as this essay told, in an US governement wanting to impose its will through international instances, because there, we speak together and all of us made compromise.

Where is compromise in IRAQ, you run as Bull remove Saddam, shout Victory, but look you have put true democracy at years light now because Shiites will impose soon an Islamic republic.
ARE YOU PROUD THAT NOW IRAQUIS WOMEM CAN'T GET OUTSIDE WTHOUT A TCHADOR AND THAT THEY MUST BE ESCORTED BY A MAN.

Is that the democracy you were expecting for IRAQ

You did the same as Custer CHARGEEEEEEE, ooops we are surrounded, ohoh we did all wrong.
And now what Bush says , please UN help us in restoring democracy in IRAQ.

You don't give time to Time. If you were following the UN path, democratic condition would be imposed to Saddam little by little and he couldn't avoid this.
But now dear Ultra Conservatives you know all better than those old pathetic European
And we saw the result in IRAQ.

And with scare I ask myself, Who's NEXT

Der WanderOldEuropean

 

[Minaya]

Slobodan Milosevic didn't have WMDs, yet, much of Europe wanted to get rid of him by using American troops to save Europe a lot of grief and time.

Probably this is the only point that we agree: Bosnia crisis had to be resolved by European countries, but they failed. It is difficult for 15 different governments in European Union to agree, but still I think that it had to be solved by Europe.

Yet, you demand to see some evidence of WMD threats in Iraq, completely ignoring Saddam's brutal dictatorship! Isn't that hypocritical of you?

Saddam was a dictator, true. Still I don't see any country (including my own and yours) in a hurry to remove any other dictator. Politics is always hypocrite. The problem is not if Sadam was a dictator, the problem now is that Irak has no government any longer. And it seems that nobody had thought about the day after the war. Iraki people had scaped from a dictator to fall in anarchy.

Besides, if given enough time like 12 years, I'm pretty sure we will find hidden WMDs in Iraq.

Before the war, UN inspectors demanded time enough to finish their job. The answer was no. Now you demand 12 years. Probably it is time to admit that this weapons maybe don't exist at all.

Saddam also had personal ambitions of pursuing WMD programs, even with economic sanctions and "containment" working, you couldn't dampen his thirst for such weapons. He would sell out his family if he thought he could get his hand on one of WMDs.

Assuming the only reason for war were WMDs, why a war was needed when the guy was under the eyes of UN inspectors?

Comparing Slobodan Milosevic to Saddam, please tell me where is the justification, if you refuse to see beyond for what they are, brutal dictators who should be removed forcefully if needed?

Two differences between both cases: 1.- in Bosnia there was already a war. 2.- The feeling among international community was close to unanimity.
The main problem in Irak is the lack of agreement even between close allies. I said before that Europe should have solved Milosevic's dictatorship. Now I say that neither Europe nor USA should have gone to Irak: Middle East countries should be able to solve their owns problems. I know your answer: democracy is not a way of government among those countries. True... but how are we to teach them democracy? Military occupation rarely is viewed as a liberation by the citizens of an occupied country.

The point, Dan, in my oppinion is that Irak's war was a mistake because it has divided the world more than it was. Middle East countries mistrust Westerns more than ever. Compare it whit the unanimity existing when the USA attacked Afganistan. This is a good example of diplomacy used before a military action: nobody supported the taliban government. How the same guys who built such a big coalition were a few months later unable to convince their closest allies about the need of a new war?