Boycott the Saudi's. dont buy their gas! <-----

[xaqintosh]

Originally posted by Zammy-Sam
There is the problem! "destroy". The mentality I see behind this is:
a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder).

Does this make you different than the guy who hit you first?

Do you have a better alternative? "Talking it over" usually isn't helpful with someone that just hit you, and there's no teacher to tell.

[Zammy-Sam]

Well, that's the point! You and many other ppl (am not talking about Americans in general) are not able to see any other possibility than hitting back.
You ask me about alternatives? Alternatives to what? To war or how to solve any "problems"? I seperate boths, because they are irreconcilable.
Hitting back (war) is no solution!!
And than again: won't it make yourself a "felon" as well, no matter if someone else hit you first?

And you should admit: in these days there are many different ways to put other nations under pressure than war... We are no primates anymore!

[xaqintosh]

Originally posted by Zammy-Sam
Well, that's the point! You and many other ppl (am not talking about Americans in general) are not able to see any other possibility than hitting back.
You ask me about alternatives? Alternatives to what? To war or how to solve any "problems"? I seperate boths, because they are irreconcilable.
Hitting back (war) is no solution!!
And than again: won't it make yourself a "felon" as well, no matter if someone else hit you first?

And you should admit: in these days there are many different ways to put other nations under pressure than war... We are no primates anymore!

I have yet to hear any viable alternatives, from you or anyone else.

[Zammy-Sam]

Alternative to what, Xaqintosh? What is it you think to solve with war, since "there are no other alternatives"?

[Decado]

as far as i see it, xaqintosh, Iraq has not "hit" america, so there is no reason for america to "hit" back. And if you say Iraq has threaten america, then one could argue that america has been a threat to Iraq for the last decades. Does that give Iraq the right to attack America? No. and for the same reason America has no right to attack Iraq.

[toast]

dixonbm

I believe my country may be acting a bit rash.

May Iraqis think the same the second before they die as their roof collapses on their heads, blown up by fragmentation bombs.

I believe my President is just in going after this man who has defied the world through a diplomatic chess game.

You're inverting roles. The USA are the ones playing with world influences. Kissinger, Brzezinski, they all confess it in their works. Read "The Grand Chessboard", 1997, Public Press, for instance.

All I do know is that most Americans are willing to stand behind their president and destroy those who would threaten America.

You should read polls a bit more. Only one American out of two declares him/herself ready for war without UN approval [source: AP].

I leave those in Europe with some words. You might be next.

Let me laugh at you on this one. I have strictly nothing against you or your opinion, but this statement is not only paranoid, it's completely ridiculous to anyone who knows the geostrategic positions respectively held by the US and by Europe.

I have said my piece. I do not intend to comment anymore in this column.

That's what Bush said to the UN a few days ago. Democracy dies at this point.

xaqintosh

The thing is, the US doesn't have a history of violence toward other nations using atomic bombs or weapons of mass destruction unless it was defensive.

Nicaragua. Vietnam. Chili. You want more ? I have a ~25 countries list somewhere in my American Foreign Policy class notes.

"a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder)."
Do you have a better alternative?

Yes. Read last French/German UN paper. It's a viable alternative.

War has never, never solved any world conflict. It may have transformed them (WW2), or replaced them with other ones (WW1), war has never been a long-term solution. War is an irrational way to solve nothing and to delay, amplify and distort problems that can be solved in peaceful means, which are the only means that should be accepted as democratical.

If you want a full Internation Relations class, why not. For the moment, I hope the very restricted amount of info I posted will suffice. PRITHEE, people on the US side, check history books before talking of Iraq, of internatl. 'chessboard' relations, of OPEC oil, of war as a solution, of Yurop.

[xaqintosh]

Originally posted by Decado
as far as i see it, xaqintosh, Iraq has not "hit" america, so there is no reason for america to "hit" back. And if you say Iraq has threaten america, then one could argue that america has been a threat to Iraq for the last decades. Does that give Iraq the right to attack America? No. and for the same reason America has no right to attack Iraq.

I don't think I specifically said we *should* attack Iraq, and I currently don't believe we should. I was just responding to the post about how hitting back is not a good alternative. My opinion on this is not to go to war with Iraq but to systematically remove the government (i.e. Saddam Hussein et al) and replace the dictatorship with a democracy.

[Decado]

Oh, sorry... i missunderstood you. yes, i am too of the opinion that Hussein doesnt seem like the ideal ruler.