Following the news this week has been confusing to say the least. Did the United States have 11 votes on the Security Council? Eight? Nine? Four? The vote is going to happen Friday. Or maybe next week. The March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm is firm, or maybe it isn’t. Maybe the United States will just say, “to hell with it,” and launch the bombers. Or maybe it will continue to go “the extra mile” for diplomacy. Who the hell knows?
It’s safe to say that reading the current Security Council is like trying to read tea leaves in a still-swirling cup. No one knows where the votes will come down until the last moment.
The U.S., for geo-strategic reasons, wants to go to war, very badly. France and Germany, for their own reasons, want to stop a war, very badly. Tony Blair may want to go to war, but I doubt he wants to very badly. If he does, in fact, take the U.K. into battle, he needs a new resolution very badly, or he might see his own regime changed before Baghdad’s. The rest of the Council — Russia, China, Syria, Angola, Pakistan, Guinea, Bulgaria, Spain, Mexico, Chile and Cameroon — is basically for sale.
As Stratfor points out, this is now a bidding war and being in between the U.S.-U.K. and France-Germany teams is the best place to be. Angola, Guinea et al., can sit back, keep the game going for as long as possible, get the bids (for aid, investment, military cooperation, state dinners or whatever) as high as possible and not let anyone know their prices until the very last moment. Why is it so hard to count noses on the Council on the issue of Iraq? Because the courted countries don’t know how they’ll vote until the gavel comes down and all bids are in.
And then we’ll have Mr. Bush’s splendid little war.
Ironic, isn’t it? I thought the point of diplomacy was to avoid war, but this bizarro diplomacy is intended (by the United States) to bless a war — and to keep the appearance of a coalition by keeping Britain in the game. France knows that whatever its actions, it can’t stop this train wreck — George W. Bush has already said the United States doesn’t need the U.N.’s permission — so Jacques Chirac’s intransigence is intended to …. what? Cement France’s position as the leader of the European counterweight to America? Keep the United Nations relevant, as though the dominant member’s ignoring the Security Council doesn’t render it irrelevant anyway?
This kerfluffle stopped being about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, national interests and the efficacy of the United Nations long ago. Oh, national leaders say these are the reasons, but so many have refused to bend or compromise that everyone is painted into a diplomatic or military corner. Bush can’t back down because America will look weak and encourage more terrorist attacks. Of course, by waging an aggressive war against Iraq, that will encourage more terrorist attacks, too. Tony Blair can’t back down because he’ll be just as dead politically as he will be if he takes Britain to war without a resolution, so he might as well go forward and hope for a quick victory. France can’t back down because Chirac has committed France to opposing America’s hegemony. Iraq can’t back down because the United States will accuse it of more delaying tactics and deceptions and attack anyway. There’s no longer a good reason for any of this.
This isn’t the start of World War III, it’s the start of World War I — a very stupid war, started thanks to a tangle of alliances, national pride and personal egos involved. It never had to happen. And — again with the irony — WWI is the war that brought the world to this point, spawning the League of Nations, the failure of which led to World War II and the later creation of the United Nations and the Security Council. It also saw the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the Kingdom of Iraq. And let’s not forget the use of chemical weapons — allegedly the reason for the great big army in the desert. It was a war that embodied the Law of Unintended Consequences.
I promised I wouldn’t make predictions about the start of the war, so perhaps I can make one about the end of it. When it’s over and the dust has settled, the United States will stand supreme in the world, powerful but hated, its boot on the throat of Iraq. The international frameworks built over the last 50 years, including the United Nations, will lie in ruins or will be about to collapse. Resentful young men, hearts full of fear, hate and Allah will find refuge and a raison d’etre as explosive martyrs. The world will be less safe — for everyone. And thousands of people — soldiers, civilians, innocent or not — will be dead. And for no good reason at all.
“Bush cant back down because America will look weak and encourage more terrorist attacks.”
Maybe there are some security and intelligence agencies actually claiming this that I haven’t seen, but I don’t know that this is really a valid concern:
1) How can terrorist organizations spin a US withdrawal as a success for their tactics, when it will be clear that non-violent means prevented war? I think it would be a hard sell to anyone not already a hardcore adherrent to their politics, and terrorist attacks spurred by withdrawal would be geared towards eliciting the harsh military responses that are the bread and butter of recruitment.
Terrorist leaders want the war because a war would validate the worldview that there’s no curbing US imperialism peacefully and that terrorism is the only deterrent short of nuclear weapons. It would boost them politically. There is also the argument that Iraq is the target right now partly because it has the least viable terrorist deterrent in the region - its few efforts in that area against US targets have been bumbling failures - invading may very well encourage other states feeling threatened by America to direct more support to non-state actors.
2) Freeing up resources from an Iraqi campaign makes them available for prevention and counter-terrorism efforts, which could help negate the terrorist threat that already exists regardless of the war. If the invasion is a go the longterm threat increases, short-term it stays the same either way.
Bush can’t back down because he’s on the ropes politically, he’ll look weak to his core constituencies and encourage challenges to his leadership domestically, and it will prove to the rest of the world that they can successfully challenge US dominance, which might lead to more of the same - something unacceptable in our national security strategy doctrine. God forbid, it might lead to subversion of US policy by encouraging countries to break further from US-lead embargos on Cuba and Haiti.
Hmm…I thought you supported this war Chris. Well, from what I read I got that impression. There is no need for an 18th resolution, Iraq has basically violated every one of them. If the UN doesn’t want to enforce their own resolutions, then we’ll do it for them. And there is word, that we may not pursue another resolution and just go. There is no rush to war, Saddam was supposed to disarm in 45 days…and 12 years have passed. The Iraqi people want this war and we will liberate them, but I don’t think that’s the reason we are going in. The ONLY 2 times the UN has sanctioned military action was in Korea and the first Gulf war. The last time congress declared war was WWII. And believe me we are in WWIII, it started on 9/11 and it will end in a fight of good vs. evil. Things will get much more worse, with threats emerging almost daily from North Korea, Iran and who know’s who next? Iraq is only a part of the puzzle, I believe we will go after other countries. Any countries that pose a threat to us will be eliminated. How many dead people will it take? Hundred thousand? Millions?…I firmly stand behind our President. I wasn’t behind this war in the beginning, but have changed my mind after seeing that Saddam refuses to comply. After Iraq, who know’s which country is next. Probably North Korea. So, pray for our leadership, our troops and for our country. We need it.
“And believe me we are in WWIII, it started on 9/11 and it will end in a fight of good vs. evil.”
So who is good and who is evil?
Opie— Not quite sure what to make of your assumption I supported this war. On the one hand, I’m glad I was objective enough that my personal biases weren’t clear. On the other, I’m concerned that my writing wasn’t clear enough when I was trying to make my personal biases clear.
At any rate, I believe this is the wrong war at the wrong time, although I believe the world will be better off without Saddam at the helm. But do the probable costs outweigh the improbable benefits? Yes. And that is why I believe this is the wrong course of action for the United States.
Fine writing. I have reached similar conclusions, but I am not capable of expressing them as well. I don’t have any spare dough, but have linked to your appeal for funds. Good luck getting over there.
I grew up with the shades of Armagaeddon hanging over me. When the Soviet Union fell, I smirked at the fallen faces of Christian Fundamentalists: their date with nuclear eternity was off.
Now it seems that they’ve been working very hard to find a new evil empire. The irony is that they don’t see that this empire exists in the heart of zealots and they are citizens of it just like Hussein.
War is peace.
“So who is good and who is evil?”
The East vs. The West
Well, I do support taking action against Iraq. Obviously you want any action to be as bloodless as possible and hopefully quick. Most Americans support taking action with or without another resolution.
I got here from the Wired story and this entry was the first one I read.
Your position is certainly clear enough and I must say I admire both your integrity and your courage.
I live in Canada where most of your opinions seem to be shared by the general population. In fact, it’s hard for anyone not living in the US to believe that there are people who buy the blatant rhetoric the current US administration force-feeds its population. It would be a very sad day for humanity if the majority of the US population were of this non-critical type.
If let loose, the bellicose sentiment fed by the war propaganda will surely propagate further, with disastrous results for everyone involved. Let’s hope, even naively, for it stop.
“privately several senior U.S. officials tell CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart they have concluded that al Qaeda has effectively been defeated and are now planning on how to battle its successor. … Publicly, administration officials continue to insist that al Qaeda is still a capable terrorist force.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/13/eveningnews/main543954.shtml
“So who is good and who is evil?”
Winner == Good
Loser == Evil
duh!! :)
Strange to see how a lot of people react…it shouldn’t be a war against Iraq…the world needs new leadership in Iraq…and no offence but please don’t let it just be the US
I still do not understand why Bush wants to attack Iraq? Will defeating Saddam make the US a safer place?
It seems kind of funny how no one has mentioned the oil factor, which mind you is the biggest force moving America into Iraq. A puppet government run by the U.S. will give all its business to, who else, the U.S. Oil = $$$ It seems every time the government needs to get the public’s eyes away from the economic problems America is facing it turns its guns on Iraq, this time its not only a diversionary tactic, its also a financial boost…
OIL? You think we are putting the lives of our young men and women for OIL? Give me a break! If we wanted oil, why didn’t the U.S. finish the job in 1991? We had troops in Southern Iraq in 1991, which is rich in oil! The theory that this is for oil is so far out in left field.
i support this war because i feel like it will be a good thing for the iraqi people.
for starters the attack will have to be fast and with the least possible damage.
the us forces and especially the president will get the blame for every dead iraqi civilian so that will have to be avoided at all cost.
furthermore they cant allow sadam to blow the oilwells because this would cause an ecological disaster and yet again the us would look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world.
when the fight is over and the dust settles the next step comes beeing rebuilding annything destroyed and an obvious improvement of the situation of the local population under the new regime.
with the power of the media keeping a close eye this cant be faked with some nice shots and then quickly leaving while grabbing the oil the way out.
on the other hand, where do you think those terrorists get there funds?
most of them originate from oilproducing countries….
might give you something to think about the next time you fill your car with gas.
OIL… well sorta, there’s this company called Haliburton that Dick Cheney used to head. After Iraq 1.0 Haliburton made billions rebuilding Iraq’s oil industry. Hailbutron is currenlty making billions setting up and operating bases in the region. Haliburton will make billions rebuilding after the dust has settled.
First of all I’d like to wish good luck to Christopher. All the best in Northern Iraq!
Second: sorry for my English, which is far from perfect. I’ll try to express my opinion in a clear way.
I understand fully everyone who supports his goverment’s policy, whether it’ from the ‘good’ side or the opposite. Each individual is influenced by his environment - in our modern times the major input of brain food comes from the dominating mass media. But also, each one is born with a blue print of his caracter . Thus it’s very likely one will encounter more than 1 simple conclusion.
Faced to millions of possible ways of thinking, I cannot accept simplifying - though well meant (I hope) - here above statements as posted by some visitors. Declarations such as ‘good vs evil’, ‘the Iraqi people want’ sound too much like an ad. They are only blisters of bits of knowledge, which only can represent an extremely coloured so-called truth.
But this is exactly how the politicians wants their voting potential to accept their plans for invading Iraq. Setting out the lines according to their own obscure agenda, whilst building up an arena for the nextcoming Shakespearian drama, which might very well end similarily: in horror. Or terror, if you want a modern synonime.
‘Don’t look behind the curtains, we’ll act for you’. Selling a war is harsh if you permit a fountain of opinions. And therefore I understand completely why the US army - defending and representing freedom and democracy - is actually training and preparing journalists near Iraqi borders for war. Let’s say, they’re not only learning them how to behave in the war scene. Meanwhile they are being taught to blur out only what the army wants them to. Can you imagine how diverse the opions in the US should be if people hadn’t had internet or journalists like Christopher?
The difference with the 1960’s is hope giving: protest marches against the war in Vietnam started after ‘l’Indochine’ already being heavily bombed. Now, many American citizens
let hear they pro-peace voice BEFORE president Bush pushed the red button.
I admit: I am an individual too. As an European citizen, I may very well be influenced far more by our media than by the oversea’s. But at least we experienced here to what an overheated pattrotic spirit can lead us: to Armaggedon. Or Auschwitz. Or Oklahoma Beach. Or East and West Berlin. Or Bosnia. Or Ieper.
Ieper?
Ieper (French: Ypres) is the city in which municipality my grand mother is born and bred
Ieper is to be found in the southwest of Belgium, some 15 kilometres away from France. Some 30,000 inhabitants of the city itself, I guess.
Ieper: properous in the Middle Ages by the produce of Flemish ‘laken’ (precious clothing material). Laying at the front in World War I (It was here the German army started its attacks with gas, therefore called ‘yperite’). Vanished from the earth after rains of bombardments. Nearly turned to dust again in World War II.
My grand mother knows what the effects of war are. Her parents knew aswell : they grew up among a flood of soldiers and refugees. Some 20 years later, they fled together with their children into the shelters.
I can’t run away from my roots. Grannie’s and grandaddy’s stories DID influence me (is there anyone who really can be objective??). Same as my teachers. Same as the books I read. The news I followed.
But from all that I learned something about war. War is not even the worse solution. It simply ISN’T a solution. It’s just the processor of a chain of slaughtering.
Better if we’d look what CAUSES war. Just after 9/11, people asked: WHYU? But do they really bother finding some answers? Do they really want their to face their abroad brothers and sisters who ask the same? And are they PREPARED to consider a slight change of thought in order to understand the motives of otherminded ‘enemies’?
Answers are there to find. I’d say: give it a thought.
Cuba, Iraq, Palestina, Chili, Vietnam, El Salvador, … The list is very long. All countries ‘The land of the free’ didn’t treat with in a very democratic manner. Each single US citizen who is pride on its country going of to war, should liften up the blindfolds for a sec.
We all want the best. For ourself. Our family. Our friends.
Everyone wants this. Let’s negotiate, not go to war. I am not naïve: Saddam Hussein is not Arabic version of Santa Claus. But will things really improve by forcing here and now a roll-over attack - likely to be fought with chemical weapons, maybe also with atomic loads.
This is not going to stop by overruling the corrupt military regime. This war will be affecting in a very long term.
This, Opie, was one of the reasons why Bush sr. didn’t insist on marching up to Bagdad. Did you know the opposite happened? The Kurds and rebellious Iraqi troops- first called by sr. Bush to stand up against Saddam - were disarmed and BOMBED (yes: bombed) by US force in order to NOT let collapse the Iraqi regime. It is not impossible Bush sr. & his entourage have realized in time they were about to open Pandora’s box : one can only imagine the consequences of a political vacuum in the midst of the Middle East.
Therefore: let’s negotiate, not fight. Otherwise may see happenig the same way as what happened in the past century to the ‘father’ of the United Nations. Ill by the manipulations of states - eager to expand their territory -, sickened by that same competitors, which set off for war, dead through losing all credibility after war. The same could happen to the UN if the US invades without permission of the Security Council. UN is installed to prevent war, therefore it should lose all reason to ‘live’ in case of Gulf War II.
We need peace and understanding.
I wish the same to all visitors of this forum.
Opie, in 1991 America was in the middle east to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and to protect all the other oil rich countries from any more expansionist attempts that Saddam may have made. For them to have invaded Iraq would have been out of the question. That mission did not allow for any exploitation of the sort. This time? Kill 2 birds with one stone,1)save the iraqi people from saddam 2) and renegotiate Iraqi oil contracts in favor of American oil companies. I wish I had enough evidence to believe that this war is worthy of my cousin, a soldier in Kuwait, putting his life on the line. This war is not necessary, there is no rush to get into it, and no single nation has a gun aimed at America’s head, least of all Iraq… War is not the answer
Thank you Peacelover
US has decided to attack Iraq without the support for the United Nations. I wonder how US would react if India acted in a similar fashion against Pakistan. In fact the provocation for the attack would be the same- General Mushrraf is training and sending terrorists into India.
i’m also from belgium, aalst to be exact.
thats why my spelling is not so good sometimes.
btw not all belgians think like louis “blistering idiot” michel does….
actually, this is a good thing for the iraqi people, anny wich way it turns out.
from the moment saddam took control of iraq the country went into a downward spiral dragging itself from one warfront to the next wich is the usual technique used by regimes who are unable to run a country to hide there incompetence and selfenrichment from the people.
now iraq lies in rubble and the people die from starvation and lack of medical attention, thx to saddam’s governement.
take him and his entourage out and you give a possible better future to a hole population who hasnt got anny now.
furthermore, anny wich pupets bush sends in as governement will do a great job at rebuidling iraq to its once glorious form.
on the one hand you dont have to think hard to guess where there orders will come from and on the other they will have a budget with room enough to rectify there mistakes because of the truckloads of oildollars who will be flowing in.
or do you think the trio (usa/uk/spain) will care about the un-embargo ?….
just thought of something…
there isnt going to be a war.
just check the position of the iraqi troops at the border and place yourself in there place.
they are standing there in the desert with the same weapons as the last time they got trampeled, only less of them and low ammo.
when they look behind them there’s nobody there because everybody else is in the cities.
in front of them are the same people from the last time with new and emproved weapons and armor, lots of ammo and even some new stuff to test in a live combat enviroment wich sounds like sience fiction to them.
these people are also clearly and constantly trying to get the message over to them that they are not there to fight them, they want saddam’s head.
the man most of them have witnessed lead their entire civilisation onto the brink of destruction and who now asks them to die for him.
these people know they dont stand a chance in hell and they are left there to die….
how long do you think it will take them to turn sides with a supprisingly higher firepower and a strong taste for saddam’s blood?
the biggest problem is the possibility of massdestructive weapons detonated inside the cities.
a nuke the size of a large backpack can be carried by 2 men and with proper shielding is virtually undetectable while just standing in a closet.
and it could take out bagdad and everybody in it.
but if this is the case it just proves that this man should have been shot a long time ago.
well,some people say that war is going to happen very fast,but what will happend if it take a good time ?
I hope that you can bring as the whatīs really happend in this stupid war
Good luck from Argentine
Seba
40 cruisemissiles aimed at saddam’s head and none hit the target….
seems the us-troops need some aiming lessons….
seems like overkill thow, all you really need is a blackops team and 1 bullet.
I’m writing from Canada. This war is not right — and it’s not question of whether it is in America’s interests or not.
War is an obsolete means of resolving problems. “Pre-emptive” wars of conquest and aggression are even more indefensible.
People die in wars — many people, in many horrible ways, and for the past century or two, most of them are civilians.
No nation’s “interests” justify that kind of slaughter. To enter into war unnecessarily, premeditatively, is mass homicide and is a war crime of the highest gravity.
Why did the Bush administration so vigourously oppose the establishment of an International Criminal Court, or at least insist that if it was established, Americans would be immune from its prosecution? Hm, I wonder…..
I dont’t understand that when so many people, all over the world, protest against a war and the UN won’t allow the US to go to war, they just do it.
The US had never a war on its own land ( except the civil war ). We in Europe had two. It costed decates to rebuilt our lands, and some decates more to free us from dominating american influences. The americans think they just go out there and do as they please. They don’t think about those they leave behind.
I have many doubts about the real goal also. They don’t want to liberate the Iraqi, they just want their oil.
What bothers me most is the hypocrit mind of the US and especially of their leaders. It were the US that :
dropped a nuclear bomb at the end off WWII on Japan
bombed Vietnam with napalm
bombed at the end of Gulfwar I a collonne with defeated soldiers nearby Basra
In Belgium there’s a slogan that says: who seads wind, will overcome a storm.
I beleive that the US now has to be more afraid of what will happen in their own country than ever before. And I am already sorry for the number of waisted lives, just because their leaders don’t give a damn.
Hi everyone.
Perhaps for some people itīs hard to understand this but, this war won’t help nobody.
This war is for what Irak has under itīs soil, which is OIL.
This war is promoted by corporations, which are the real power in USA. They don’t give a damn about people. They are only concern about their own interests, - MAKING MONEY -.
Your president is lying. He isn’t better than Saddam.
Because of his fault CIVILIANS WILL die.
He is sending your soldiers and Irak soldiers to die for nothing worth.
Do you think war can be good?
Impossible. War is always bad. War is an insanity. War never makes things better. War changes people forever. Those who promote war are the real criminals.
Please dont let them make you support this maddnes.
I just what to say that america, for the rest of the world, especialy the THIRD WORLD, is the real evil empire.
We don’t hate american people.
We hate those who rule you.
They make our people die by starvation and illnesses.
They have supported dictatorial goverments that have tortured and murdered thousands of inocents.
They make us change our laws to protect their interests.
Please, do not support this criminals anymore.
Do not support this war. You are INVADING Irak, not LIBERATING it.
Hi everyone.
Perhaps for some people itīs hard to understand this but, this war won’t help nobody.
This war is for what Irak has under itīs soil, which is OIL.
This war is promoted by corporations, which are the real power in USA. They don’t give a damn about people. They are only concern about their own interests, - MAKING MONEY -.
Your president is lying. He isn’t better than Saddam.
Because of his fault CIVILIANS WILL die.
He is sending your soldiers and Irak soldiers to die for nothing worth.
Do you think war can be good?
Impossible. War is always bad. War is an insanity. War never makes things better. War changes people forever. Those who promote war are the real criminals.
Please dont let them make you support this maddnes.
I just what to say that america, for the rest of the world, especialy the THIRD WORLD, is the real evil empire.
We don’t hate american people.
We hate those who rule you.
They make our people die by starvation and illnesses.
They have supported dictatorial goverments that have tortured and murdered thousands of inocents.
They make us change our laws to protect their interests.
Please, do not support this criminals anymore.
Do not support this war. You are INVADING Irak, not LIBERATING it.
for everybody who wants to stop the war and negotiate:
every day, more and more people die in irak.
not because of the war but because of saddam running the country.
or even killed if they dont see things his way.
how would you like negotiating with saddam while in front of you stands a clock that ticks every time somebody dies because of saddam.
how would you feel when you sit there trying to talk some sense into him, listening to the sound of innocent people suffering and dieing by his hand and realising he is never, ever going to stop.
how peacefull will your mind be, face to face with the man who leads a great country to destruction and his own people to annihalation only because he wants to stay in power.
and to top it off, after years and years of mismanagment, opressing and destroying everybody who stands in his way, killing whole parts of his own civilization in the most horrible ways he was the sole man who could stop it all and finally set his people free and give iraq a chance to grow again just by backing his bags, grabbing all the money he can lay his hands on offcourse, and leave.
nobody would get hurt and the troops would be helping people instead of figuring out a way how to get as much as possible out of his deathtraps aka the cities.
annyway, i see something developing.
afganistan: a country run by an oppressing regime,turning the clock back a few hundred years, wrecking a great country.
iraq: run by saddam, on the brink of destruction but was once a great country.
both are beeing cleaned up by bush and his gang while the un picks up the pieces and rebuilds.
the rest of bush’s list shows the same scenario…
what would happen to the world in general if all these regimes fall and the governement runs things like they should be run?
or at least better then the last governement….
how good would a terrorist organisation do if the people are not oppressed and have a good future ahead for them and their family because the us or in general the western part of the world took over and kicked their own governement out of service?
iraq can be a shining example of this because of the state now and the biggest oilfield (compared to countrysize) anny country has.
just think about this:
if everybody marching and protesting for peace now goes to iraq when this is over and helps building up the economy/medical/social structure iraq would be up and running like saddam was never there by the end of the summer.
For those who think that this war going to free Irak, remember what happened 14 years before in Panamá. Find some information about how many civilians were “protected” in the Operation “Just Cause” , and howīs the situation in Panamá today.
panama dosnt have what the usa has a growing demand of….
iraq has.
it dosnt happen often that economic, ecologic and humanitary intrests go hand in hand like in this case.
ecological?
yes because this is about oil.
saddam wants to blow the wells causing an ecologic disaster, bush and co. need the wells up and running so they can start pumping right away.
so we have economic reasons using military means saving the enviroment and in the same time ensuring the moneystream needed to rebuild fast dosnt get put back due to repairs to the economic system.
could it be better?
and if you still believe iraq will be left to rot after this just look at what will happen.
saddam’s regime will fall.
the new regime is actually the us governement.
the us wants oil, lots of it and iraq has it.
iraq lies in rubble and will have lots of money to spend. the people need to buy everything again wich they will be able to pay for with the work in the supprisingly fast restarted oilindustry.
guess where most of these products will come from?
Aparently, we can discus this for decades, and still we wouldnt agree, saddly.
Bush doesnt care about PEOPLE, he cares about MONEY.
There is no humanitarian or ecological reasons for this war, although you heard your president saying that.
Do you know how changes the enviroment a war of this kind?
For example, US army fires weapons that uses uranium, and this obviusly afects the environment because of the radiation. It happened in 1990, and afected both iraki and american soldiers as well.
And talking about oil. Who gave you the right to use iraki oil for yourself?
Just because you say that iraki regime is bad, you dont have the right to go and kill people as you want, and then use the resourses of that country to build up an industry to raise the profits of some corporations.
What you are talking about is INVATION, folowed by COLONIZATION. You will have a colony, not a free nation.
You cant go and force a country to buy your products because their industry is in ruins, thanks to a war that you stared against it, thats really awful.
I just want to make you understand that this war is far from being humanitarian.
I know that perhaps some politicians will try to make this war appear as a “just cause”, but believe me, its not.
Use your brain, dont listen those who make money with the suffering of others.
this war is not a just cause because this war shouldnt be happening.
dont get me wrong, i find it a shame for humanity to come this far and still need to resort to war to solve a situation like this but saddam and his regime dosnt leave manny options.
that is a fact.
this could be resolved easy and without bloodshed if it wasnt for saddam’s ego.
the iraqi oil is a product wich iraq can sell and the whole world needs.
wich brings an income for iraq that can be used for rebuilding the country.
you dont enforce a certain line of products on a nation, you make sure it is in the stores and that people want to buy it.
in this case the people need to buy a lot to get back to where they were before saddam stepped in.
so if the products beeing offered are britisch, us, asian or european, who really cares?
if the coalition forces succeed and iraq is once again a ‘free’ country its just a matter of getting your supplies in first.
with the us-army and governement backing them up most labels will offcourse be of the coalition countries.
that dosnt mean there will only be us/uk/sp products ,just that they will make the majority.
also, if you place yourself in the shoes of the iraqi people and watch as the coalition troops take care of the man responsible for the destruction of your country and the killing of famillie or friends while getting medical care, food an supplies to you and after all that pump a lot of money into iraq in exchange for the oil you will see these people as your liberators and prefer products that come from them.
the question you need to ask yourself is: is that so bad?
lets face it, we are beeing influenced by advertising every day buying products we dont even need to survive.
so what if the products the iraqi people buy are braittisch , spanish and american, they need them to once again have a future for them, their familie and there friends.
so its a form of colonisation, is that really so bad?
look at the alternative and tell me if letting saddam at the helm is better then a us-governement and a lot of oildollars flowing in to spread around and rebuild the nation to its once great form.
yes this is about the oil but with the efforts to make minimum damage to the industrail capacity you save the people at the same time.
you need workers for them plants remember?
and if you want your companys to make lots of money on this you need to make sure you have a market with money to spend beeing in this case the iraqi people.
so you need to get your potential shoppers a)alive b)food and water and c)housing.
also they will need money wich will come flowing in while the oil flows out.
the us-oilcompanys will pay for the oil giving the iraqi people money to buy american products thereby sending the oildollars back to the us.
first line of products needs to be basic and no matter the quality, they need to be cheap.
after a while the people will get settled again while the oildollars keep rolling in wich will enable them to buy better products and even some luxury items.
with over 20 million potential shoppers this will be a nice boost for the prefered economies while the oil so badly needed by the us flows in with offcourse a nice pricetag to it.
this is what bush has been saying all along and if you look at it, this is a win/win situation.
if this is over the iraq economy will get a major boost while in term helping the us economy.
and in the meantime he’s got something to say to the anti-american movements in the rest of the region when they are talking about the ‘evil’ america: “explain irak”.
just look at the facts,the things that will be bound to happen and the reasons this war was started in the first place.
the us wants little or no damage to the economic structure so the oil can be for sale a soon as possible.
the us wants to have iraq for gasstation and are planning on draining loads.(btw a nice message for the chirac-fans: he had agreements for the iraq oil after the embargo only with saddam….)
the us economy could use a boost wich will come from millions of hungry shoppers in iraq.
the iraqi people want to be free and rebuild what was once a great country.
most of all they want to stay alive and that wasnt going to happen with saddam running the show.
they want to use the oilpumps to get money flowing in like it once did.
they’ll need to rebuild a whole country and will be more then happy to buy the products their ‘liberators’ offer wich is not a bad thing cause we do it every day, just look around you and see how manny products you have in your room now sold by us-companies.
see the comparison between the two?
Irak, Iran,Noth Korea.Axis of evil.
Today is Irak and tomorow ?
By violating Onu council, Bush show clearly what he wants to do.
It’s just the beginning of the war…
Bush administration is dangerous for the world.
Americans citizens have to think now, they have to forgot a little time the flag in their ass, and use their brain.
I am terrified by the lake of critical jugement of the majority of us citizen.They believe in the governement, what ever it does.
By comparison, if any european governement says that we must bomb Tchad, uruguay, or Jordania, they will face a huge black-out by citizens.(strengh comparison is the same between usa/Irak or Iran.)
If our governent says that such country can attack us, you will see a big smile in our faces.
Even with a 11/9 In europe, we will not refuggee
in paranoia.
Those for war have to think about this.
(sorry for my poor english language).
Greetings to Chistopher courageous work.
philippe
so whats your solution philippe?
more negotiations?
more talking?
more thinking you can talk sense into people like saddam,bin laden, etc?
lets take a step back into european history shall we?
remember the dark ages?
the time when their was religious opression all around…
people beeing killed for their beliefs by their own neigbours because they believed the were evil?
the katholic church ruling over europe while enriching itself?
the inquisition bringing death to the ‘devils’ wich were most of all the enemys of the pope?
sounds familliar?
we got thrue that with a lot of damage.
seems to me like the islam is going into their own darkages with the us as their ‘devils’ and al-qaida as their inquisition.
instead of sitting here bitching about the solution to a lot of iraq’s problems, get out there and help.
the soul reason the people out in the streets in europe protesting against the us-policy can do so is the use of the us-policy to liberate their parents and grandparents from an evil dictator.
twice…
seems like everybody forgot about thatone.
the us-policy is influencing all of our lives daily.
i dont see us doing so badly…
now everybody is protesting because the us is removing a dictator from power and replacing the governement with one of their own.
same thing they did overhere, twice…
if you have a problem with that you can always join the neo-nazi’s.
maybe you can add to brining europe back to where it was before the us stepped in that way.
What i want to say is a little different.
I don’t know if this war is good or bad, and it will be difficult to really know.
I have talk a lot with american people on chat and forum and what i see is fear mainly fear.
What ‘s really dangerous is ,as i say before,lack of critical judgement.They all repeat what governement say, no more, no personnal idea.
So does the war is for petroleum , for human right, for imperialism, because saddam has massive destruction arm, because of terrorism ??
In fact no one see some evident fact, and they accept any idea for war because it’s what governement say.
If tommorow a US president say that Europe is dangerous for economy and that they need to bomb,
you can be sure that in a few days all people will support their president.
And this is really dangerous!
Sorry but we have to consider this fact in Europe.
philippe
After the Coalition of the Willing has finished Shocking and Awing the Iraqis into democracy, will democracy come to the United States too? If so, thank you Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, etc.
After the Coalition of the Willing has finished Shocking and Awing the Iraqis into democracy, will democracy come to the United States too? If so, thank you Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, etc.
After the Coalition of the Willing has finished Shocking and Awing the Iraqis into democracy, will democracy come to the United States too? If so, thank you Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, etc.
just remember - the people of Iraq are being oppressed - i have read comments that Americans are going to inevitably kill civilians during this war….and yet no one protesting the war seems to remember that the citizens of iraq are killed every day because of saddam and his regime. think of how many lives we are saving now that would’ve been lost if the rest of the world just sit there and let things happen - think of how many lives have been lost already because of the world’s inaction over the past 12 years. think of the poverty that the everyday iraqi citizen is forced to live in because of saddam’s regime. think of how they live in fear every day, and cannot do anything to oppose him themselves or they will die - when saddam had his elections, anyone who voted not for him was killed. it’s because of fear that over half of their citizens voted for him in blood this past election, and he got the vote 100% - not becuase they supported him but becuase they were afraid of him. go to amnesty.org….and you can look up all of the human rights atrocities that he has carried out amongst his people. go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html and you can see how saddam is linked with the Al Qaeda… go to http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html to read a letter by some iraqi exiles and their expression of the real situation in iraq. normally when such oppression takes place, and the people are unified enough, they start a revolution. when they are not strong enough to do this themselves, people ask for help. i think the cries of the iraqi people have been heard enough. but who is strong enough to help them? the coalition of the currently 46 countries from almost every continent on the globe…and well, the US has the power to do the main backing and carrying out of delivering these people. yes there are some casualties for innocent citizens in iraq. but there are also casualties from soldiers from the US and all aroudn the world who are willing to give their lives to free these people who live in a land they scarely know and many of whom they may never meet, all for a cause to liberate them and release them from a trapped life in fear. it’s not like the rest of hte world wants a big war for the sake of having a war - diplomacy has been tried - and tried and tried - and has been proven ineffective. In order to stop this from continuing action does need to happen - and unfortunately, the only thing that is going to work is military action - not saying war is good, just saying that there is no other way. if anyone can propose a solution to ending saddam’s regime or making him be nice to all of his citizens and not lie about possession of weapons and such then by all means i’m for hearing it. and the argument about how it’s all for oil, even if oil is a factor, then why would 45 other coutnries back the US to help the US get oil - obviously, there are other reasons for doing this war that bear much more merit than just gaining an edge in teh oil industry. MY reasons for supporting hte war are not oil, or the US asserting it’s power to the rest ofthe world - my reasons are to help those in Iraq who have been suffering for all this time while we have sat by and done nothing and putting an end to a regime that is capable of and practices such horrible atrocities, with the intent of much more, not just for its own people, but for many who oppose it throughout the world.
When i read posts like paul venneman ones, it try to imagine if i were in your situation paul.
If i see how 2 really big buildings, which were part of the proud of New York, are reduced to dust, with people inside, it really would make me angry.
Another feeling would be fear. If a terrorist attack can take place in the USA, terrorist treat has to be really dangerous.
Also, the goverment said that some man called Bin Laden is responsable for the attacks.
And they said that he is in Afganistan, and he is protected by the Talibans, which are a very close minded muslim regime, at least, for the occidental culture.
The reaction would be, “Well, letīs go for him”.
And then, an attack to Afganistan was supported by american people.
Then, the goverment said that Saddam Husein has weapons of mass destruction and he could use them against USA. And that with this brutal regime, iraki people was suffering.
Then, the goverment says that if Saddam doesnīt destroy it’s weapons, USA would force Saddam to do so. An attack would be necesary.
Months later, and with the disaproval of many countries, the goverment says that is time to free Irak from Saddam, its time to free irakis from such a brutal regime.
Again, “We have the power to do this, so lets go and do something to help those people”.
And, “Why other countries dont support us?,
They must be cowards, They support Saddams regime, we are so angry with them”.
But sometimes things are not like we want to believe. One day we think we are doing good, but there are things hidden to us, that doesnt let us see that we are doing bad.
The USA has become, in the middle of the 20th century, a superpower, with means that it can control the entire world in many ways.
Yes, there was the Soviet Union, it was a superpower two. But it wasnt as strong as USA.
While the S.O. area of influence was their weak neighbours, USA could influence the rest of the world.
During the next decades, the USA was involved in many wars.
In some of this wars, the USA itself was involved in the conflict, while in others, it used its influence to achieve its goals.
But, what were this goals?.
Well, as the greatest superpower, and under a capitalist system, the USA wanted to use the rest of the world to expand his power. So, big corporations begun to sell its products everywere they could.
As their products flooded the global markets, their culture begun to do so with foreign minds.
It was how children in other countries begun to introduce cowboys in their games, for example.
But, what happened with those countries that wanted to use their own systems of economy?
Well, it was unaceptable. It was necesary to convince people that the only way of life was the american one.
It was necesary to use any kind of influence to be sure that a country will have open markets where american products could be sold.
So, in countries with democracy as the form of goverment, it was easy to “convince” the ruling party to keep their economy moving as they wanted.
In other parts of the world, with totalitarian goverments, it was even easier to keep goverment doing what the USA wanted them to do.
But there was people who were oppositors to this kind of system. Why?
The problem was that, as corporations raised its profits, poverty in those countries begun to raise too.
If the country was totalitarian, there was no problem, the little opposition was fighted with iron fist.
But if it was a democracy, things could get dangerous, especialy if people didnt like the way they were living with this system.
So, what USA did was to train this countries armies, and then, support them to take the power.
Those armies were able, not only to control oppositors, there were able anihilate them.
Thanks to this policy, in latinamerica, almost everycountry was under this kind of regime from the sixties to the eighties.
Thousands of people tortured and murdered by those goverments was one of the legacy they left.
But if that legacy was bad, the economic situation they left was even worse.
As the goverments, with the rich class, took loans of millions of dollars, the debt those countries had with the international organizations, like the IMF, was reaching the sky.
And this was what USA and other countries wanted.
After decades of dreadful dictatorial goverments, they not only left missed people, they left those countries economies in ruins.
The next thing to do was to make the following democratic goverments sell national public services, as well as national resourses, to foreign (American as well as European) companies.
But, what happened with the debt those countries had?
Well, they forced people to pay it.
So, more taxes, cuts in educational, security and health services budgets, and more poverty.
In some countries, this policy destroyed most industries. So, they were forced to buy everything from more industrialized countries.
As the main source of jobs was the services area, which is owned by foreign countries, and not producing anything, because there are no industries, what was the result? Unemployment.
More poverty. Bigger brench between poor and rich class.
What has to do this with Irak?
Well, itīs important to make clear the fact that USA goverment as always supported goverments that worked for them, and they didnt care about how those goverments ruled people. In most cases, they trained those goverments armies to deal with oppositors or other innocents, violating most of the basic human rights, with the support of the USA.
The bottomline is global domination.
And to make those people who rule the world even more rich.
If they have to overthrow the power of some country and put a puppet as a president, they will.
If they have to kill thousands of people, they will.
If they have the 80% of the wealthiness, they will want the 90%, no matter how many children will have to die.
And if to achieve this they have to hidde all this, telling you lies, they will.
They will tell you things that you hate to make you angry, they will acuse inocents to make you aprobe a bombardment. They will play with your patriotism.
They will betray their own allies when they need to.
Thatīs what happened with Saddam.
In the eighties, Irak was influenced by the USA, with Saddam already in the power, to fight the war against Iran.
Because the USA was afraid of a possible Islamic expansion, they used Irak to stop them.
So, american and other companies sold Irak weapons, ammunitions and chemical and biological components, to produce weapons to use against Iran.
So they did. And because there was fierce opposition to Saddams regime in the north by the kurds, and in the south by the chiits. Saddam use this chemical weapons against them too. And it was ok for the USA, because they wanted Saddam to control the country this way.
Then, Saddam thought that if he invaded Kwait, nobody would take that invation the way it was taken, he was an ally of the USA. But he was wrong and the USA and other countries not only made Saddams army retreat from Kwait, they destroyed most of his army and put some economical sanctions to Irak.
But this sanctions were paid by the irakis, not the regime. 500.000 children died because of it.
Now, 12 years later, Irak is useful again to the USA. Because Irak was selling oil to Russia, China and other countries, and USA needs a source of oil for the future, the goverment decided to invade Irak.
But you dont go to a war so simple, at least you need a reason. And the goverment cant say they go to war because they need Irakīs oil.
So they say that they are a menace to the world. That Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that he is bad and the irakis are suffering and so on.
But, although the goverment wereīnt lying, there are reasons because this war is ilegal.
There are international laws. These laws were written to protect every countryīs rights
Thatīs why attacking a county saying thats itīs for defence is not legal.
No matter what you say.
You cant declare a war to help somebody.
If Saddam is in power, although he is who he is, no country as the right to go and kill him.
No matter how humanitarian mission they say they will do in Irak, itīs a lie.
Perhaps, you think that irakis will be happy to have the opportunity to live buying things you buy, living more like you like.
But being a colony, as you want them to be, is far from being somthing nice.
I live in Argentina, one of the third world countries, “influenced” by the USA and Europe.
Thanks to the “free market” our industry in no more.
Our national resources belong to people with foreign names.
Our public services are owned by companies that doesnt give a damn about people, so they raise their taxes and their service is worse.
Althogh we have our own oil, we have to pay our fuel high, because its owned by an European company.
More than half our population is poor, thanks to our foreign debt with the IMF, left by goverments that worked for the USA and Europe.
My way of live can be considered as very rich for many people, and i belong to a middle class
family (i eat every day).
And all the profits of all those companies i named, go to the acounts of some business man in the Caribe.
For all this reasons, because this war will kill hundreds of inocents, because this war is for selfish causes, and will lead the iraki to more opresion, i would like to see Saddam, Bush, Blair, Asnar and so many others in jail for the rest of their lives.
juampa, writing a paper? :D
yes its all a lie.
this mission is not humanitary but the goals, both economic and humanitary are an improvement of the situation the iraqi people live in anny day.
you can not deny that the outcome of all this will be freedom for the iraqi people and a chance for a better future.
yes they wont be truly free because of the us-controlled governement but then again, is that so bad?
i see thousands marching the streets in the us shouting bush is an asshole, bush is bad, bush sucks, bush is evil.
try the same in iraq under saddam and you wont see the sun rise over the desert again, ever.
this generation (at least in europe/us) is the first who hasnt felt what opression is.
we complain about parkingtickets and feel like high taxes is bad.
try putting yourself in the shoes of a man, sitting outside his once beautifull house, currently falling appart because there is no money to fix annything, not even enough for food.
he is sitting there, his stomach in a pain from hunger the likes you never felt while he is holding his child in his arms, dieing of some stupid dissease that could be cured easy if there was a dokter around or if that dokter had anny medicine…..
before you open your big mouth to people who at least try do do something take a look at whats going on.
look at the country, once a pearl in the desert, now in ruins.
the people starving, dieing, selling everything they have because there is no work, no money, nothing.
imagine the pain in your gut because you havent been eating for days and you give that last bit of food to your children, trying to at least keep them alive.
look at your friends, your familie, your children and imagine them all going to waste around you and there is nothing you can do to stop it because if you complain, you “dissapear”.
no future, no hope…
people dieing every day, not even counting all the suffering.
and some people want to talk some more….
some people make me sick.
Actually, I don’t think Saddam would have a problem with people marching through the streets of Baghdad shouting, “bush is an asshole, bush is bad, bush sucks, bush is evil.”
To Paul:
“before you open your big mouth to people who at least try do do something take a look at whats going on.
look at the country, once a pearl in the desert, now in ruins.
the people starving, dieing, selling everything they have because there is no work, no money, nothing.
imagine the pain in your gut because you havent been eating for days and you give that last bit of food to your children, trying to at least keep them alive”
This is exactly what happen in Argentina too.
This was financial terrorism.
Each time Usa PIB grow, it was an other country that is starved.
You are unable to understand global world problem, outside you own world.
philippe
Philipe counldn’t explain it better.
Do you think that because you live in a “democracy”, and because a group of people can say what they want in your streets, and nobody kills them (although police doenst seem to agree with them…), your country is the main protector of democracy??
Its really hard to believe for countries that have lived “Plan Condor”.
Countries that have suffered years of guerrilla wars, supported by the CIA, to take the power in countries that wanted to be free.
Why dont you ask what Nicaraguan people think about CIA’s Contras?
Or ask what they think about CIA’s Death Squads.
in Honduras, El Salvador or Panama.
Ask Chile and Argentina about Pinochet and Videla.
What happened with Allende, when he tried to rule Chile with a more fair system?
Or ask Vietnam, Laos and Camboya about what they think about the USA “freedom”.
Even today, there are thousands of men a women trying to find their past, that was taken away by those inhumane goverments.
I dont want to blame you about this things, they have nothing to do with you. Itīs far from being your fault. I just want to explain that you live in a country with criminals in the goverment, not presidents, just like my president.
It’s not necesary to live under totalitarism to suffer things like you think that are happening in Irak.
I live in a democracy, and there are children dying because their parents cant feed them too.
Yes, we can go to the streets and say what we want, and what happens? Nothing. Nothing changes.
Yes, sometimes police kill people because of it.
All in a “free democracy”.
Do you know what happens in thir world democracies?
80% of the wealthiness of the country is in the hands of 2% of the population. How fair.
We are economic colonies of the First World.
They use our countries to keep their way of life.
This is how the world is like.
This is the system that people like Bush support.
Do you think that i dont care about suffering people in Irak? Offcourse i do.
Do you think i like Saddam Hussein. Offcourse i hate him. He is responsable of a genocide.
But an invasion wont help this people.
A war wont help this people. This War is killing even more people. This war is a brutal invasion.
Yes, you think that with your army, freedom will come and people will be happy.
But this wont happen. People will be even more poor, and because the oil will be in hands of american or other countrys hands, that money will go to the accounts of those companies.
The only infraestructure that will be rebuilt will be the oil fields.
This war shows a dangerous lesson to the world.
If the USA wants some resource that cant be bought, it will be taken by force.
They will acuse the country of terrorism or something like that, and they will invade the country.
Please, stop this madness.
i’m still waiting for one of you opposing the war to bring a better solution…
i dont like this war anny more then you do but it is a solution to many problems.
for all the people who think of bush as evil i want you to think about something.
suppose you are ordered to quit your job in order to stop the death and destruction of your whole nation.
and keep in mind you are so rich you dont have to work another day in your life while living in luxury.
would you find this easy?
would you have to think twice?
thats what saddam had to do to avoid this war…
yet he chose not to and cause death and destruction under his regime, again…
the difference in this case is that iraq has something to offer and will continue this for manny years to come.
and if bush succeeds in trampeling saddam’s army it would set an example for the next regime that gets invited to hand over the helm.
Paul,
when the nations all around the world (UN) will decide to legitimate “preventive war” against dictators, i hope there will be first some international rules set up in order to be able to validate any action against a dictator. That legal framework will be created in order be applicable to every possible cases in the world.
If you don’t do it that way, running a preventive war with no legal context is an open door to legitimate every action from any country against any potential dictator.
And who is a dictator really ? In the case of Saddam, there is no doubt about it, Saddam is a dictator.
But for others countries ? North-african countries like Tunisia, Algeria, are they lead by dictators ? Are they democracies ? Some said yes, some said no. Are the europeans going to invade Algeria because many terrorists coming from that country have killed many people in Europe in the 90’s into several terrorist actions ? Sounds stupid no … but european might argue that having terrorists coming from Algeria is a threat for Europe and they have the right to send troops over there .. Really stupid isn’t it ? I think so.. So there should be laws to avoid that kind of chaos to happen.
The major issue with that Irak war is its illegality. The main argument from pro-war people is “Saddam is a tyran, it is good anyway to remove it” and that’s surely a good and valid argument…
But as far as i know, being a tyran in its own country is NOT a legal reason for some other countries to have the rights to invade that country in order to remove the so-said tyran. It could become a legal reason in the future ONLY in case of the international community of nations will decide to create a legal framework. But actually it is not.
If the Bush’s administration goal would have been to set up democracy all around the world, they would have proposed the legal framework to do it first, have the laws voted and accepted by the others countries, the case of Saddam debated by the international community to the light of these laws and THEN the war when a majority is OK for that. That’s not what happened.
The 1441 was really about destroying massive destruction weapons in Irak and not removing Saddam from Irak. Who is talking about massive destruction weapons now ?
Does a US policeman arrest any man in the US just because he is a gun’s owner and hence potentially a children’s killer ? I don’t know exactly what are the rules in the US about weapons, but i guess that a man with a gun should be at least threatening in order to be arrested. Was Saddam threatening toward the neighbors countries these last 10 years ? Did he claimed to use massive destruction weapons against his neighborood ? Answer is no…
Are we going to arrest all the presidents of the nation owning massive destruction weapons ? I guess the answer is no, because in that case mr Chirac, Berlusconi, Blair, Poutine, Bush, Shroeder will have some troubles. Their respective countries have sold chemical, nuclear and biogical weapons to Irak. So all these countries got these weapons. They are able to produce them and sell them.
Are we going to invade Israel ? They got massive destruction weapons, they do not respect UN resolutions, they have invaded a part of their neightborhood.
Are we going to kill Mr Poutine ? His country got massive destruction weapons and has aggressively attacked Tchetenia and kill many people.
Of course answers are no, no no and no..
So sorry about that, i don’t like Saddam, he killed thousands of people, i don’t like dictators, i like democracy, so i also like to follow the democracy rules and these rules told me this war is illegal.
Democracy is not freedom to do everything you want whenever you decide it. Democracy is really setting up rules that might help to respect each other. I read somewhere in an US paper that US and “old Europe” have different approach about democracy. US democracy is based on freedom, old Europe democracy is rather based on equality. The paper was surely right..
let’s just look at some facts, without being emotional:
so this war is going to cost the US (und just them, without considering allies and Iraq) 70 000 000 000 $ (at least to begin with). if this war was just about helping people, I think there are other places where this money could be spent much more efficiently (without using so much expensive military). As I say, perhaps this war is also about saving people in Iraq from poverty and from its ruler… but surely this can not be the main objective.
The world’s economy is doing extremely bad, the US are no exception. Nevertheless taxes will be lowered at large scales. Where will the money come from if not from taxes?
Sadam’s a tyrant, a murderer …(feel free to add whatever you like). Everyone knows. And maybe he is even in possession of chemical and/or biological weapons and he is surely trying to get a nuclear bomb.
Kim Jong-Il is even worse. He already got his A-bombs. And, being competely crazy (Sadam at least is not as crazy as he is), I think he is the only person in the world being capable to use a nuclear weapon (first).
Now North Corea can’t be attacked, out of question, much to dangerous. But Iraq isn’t quite as dangerous, so there one could say “get them as long as they don’t have enough mass destruction weapons to be a real threat” … but otherwise, then the logical consequence for all other totalitarian regimes would be to do just like Kim does; Iran is rapidly heading towards his own A-weapons. A- Bombs as a protection … This won’t make American poeple more secure.
So Bush would be stupid to say preventing Iraq from getting (more) mass destruction weapons are a reason to attack the country. this can’t be a reason to attack.