Mr. Bush should be proud

[pds]

peace... absence of war... state of harmony...

I say again, while Saddam is a bad guy and probably should go, the point is to defeat terrorism and the fanatacism that poisons the Muslim world. The way to do that has much more to do with doing right by the Palestinians. That means assuring them of a contiguous, defensible homeland and supporting the development of a civil society. That will undermine Al Qaeda and Osama more than any outcome of an attack on Baghdad.

[Satcomer]

War with Iraq is not the answer. However European countries (especially France) have a long history with Saddam. France built the nuclear plant for Saddam (in the 80's) plus sold Saddam Mirage jet fighters. They still sell him the spare parts for those fighters. So the Europeans should look in the mirror once in a while.

[jeb1138]

Originally posted by fryke
Solving this problem is a good cause. 'Going to war against terrorism' is not. Because it's basically fighting fire with matches.

Unfortunately, it's not OK to be wrong regarding how to deal with this issue. On the one hand, what if:
- Saddam really doesn't have horrendous weapons of mass destruction and isn't aiding and abetting terrorists, or
- Inspections really are capable of containing him, and
- A war against him turns out to be 'messy'?

Thousands upon thousands of lives would be lost in vain.

On the other hand, what if he really does have or is developing nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, really is aiding and abetting terrorists and really is cunning enough to hide these things from inspectors for "long enough"? The consequences are unimaginable. Literally.

If the leaders of the United States, Britain, and almost all the countries of Europe are convinced that the latter is the case, which they are, can anyone criticise their decision that war must be made, aware of the cost? No.

As the leader of this movement against Iraq, President Bush has an awesome and unfathomable responsibility laid upon his shoulders. Let no one mock his intelligence, his integrity or his intent in this fateful hour.

I wholeheartedly accept the fact that you may disagree with the United States' analysis of the evidence against Iraq. I am dubious, while hopeful, of this evidence myself. I do not pretend to know the truth of the matter. However, I cannot accept the decision to deride President Bush's character and to suggest that he merely likes playing war games or is out on a personal vendetta against Saddam. That is absolutely false. President Bush is a good man. He is not evil, he is not delusional, he is not false, he is not a warmonger. He is good.

I support and applaud every single war protestor who hit the street yesterday to say that they believe the evidence against Saddam is not enough. It is an honourable thing to forsake one's personal time to proclaim their belief in what they feel is the truth, especially in a matter as important as this one. I do not know but that they may be absolutely correct. I hope they protest again tomorrow, the next day and every day after that, and, if they are correct, I hope they are heeded.

I cannot abide those who would attempt to drag an honourable and deeply burdened man through the mud for no justifiable reason.

That is all.

OK, that's not all, but it's all for now.

[fryke]

No justifiable reason? He is not evil, he is good?

The world hasn't got a problem with terrorism, the world has a USA-Problem. The problem being that a very, very simple man is on top of the nuclear power of this world. The problem being that he's leading armies to a war with simplistic images of good and evil. "We good. You evil. We kill. You die. We happy."

Listen to Bush or Powell speak... I mean, Powell in Germany a few days or weeks ago: "There are regimes in Europe not agreeing with the USA. They will have to accept not to be elected again." Huh?! An American talking elections?! And what right does he have thinking there's ONE way and ONE truth and that THE TRUTH is his?

'almost all the other countries of Europe'? You must be blind and deaf... Ignoring France, Germany, Switzerland and others... What should I say? It's a bit like denying there are computers not running Windows. Believe me: There ARE computers not running Windows. And mine is one.

We should urge the UN to install a basic democracy in countries in need of development. For example, the USA seemed to have some trouble lately regarding elections. Also, they have nuclear weapons and are threatening war all over the world. Maybe the US should be restricted and controlled. Urged to destroy all weapons of mass destruction. With a democracy installed and some level of control, maybe the world can again sleep tight and doesn't have to dream about the evil George W. Bush or the evil Colin Powell. Notice how simple and false this sounds to you Americans? Now try to listen with the ear of a European, an Iraqi...

[Shifting]

Originally posted by edX
there are many of us who would argue that Bush wasn't elected - he took control in the midst of scandal and confusion over our voting processes. it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him.

amen to that.

[jeb1138]

Really, the blind and deaf comments weren't necessary.

I apologize for my remark about "most of Europe" if it was incorrect. I was sincerely under the impression that it is the widespread view that this is the case. Please explain to me why you believe it is not. Here is why I believe it is:

16 of the 19 NATO members, including Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are all supporting the U.S. and Turkey in their request to aid Turkey with additional military resources at this time. France, Germany and Belgium are opposed, and Belgium is seeking compromise. This, at minimum, highlights the split within Europe.

The prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and the president of the Czech Republic jointly published their support of the United States in an open letter which you can read here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBu...20030130g.html

As you said, no country has yet declared war on Iraq, and no country has said yet that war must be waged on Iraq today. Very few nations have declared themselves as of the view that it is time immediately for compliance from or war with Iraq. It is my impression that most of Europe's leaders believe that Saddam "really does have or is developing nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, really is aiding and abetting terrorists and really is cunning enough to hide these things from inspectors for 'long enough'".

Yes President George Bush is good and no he is not evil. He is good. Not perfect -- good, and striving to do the best he can with many other leaders of the nations of the world to save lives and help rid the world of terrorism.

Evil exists and is as real and classifiable as good is. The moment we lose our ability to classify good and evil is the moment we lose meaning in life. President Bush is not claiming that every member of the leaders of these countries is pure evil incarnate. They may have helped an old lady across the street some time, who knows? He is putting into simple words the attitude and methodology that needs to be applied in dealing with these countries: they are evil. Their basic tenets and philosophies of government are for the gain and evil purposes of those leading them. They have as a purpose to gain personal power without regard for human life. This is evil. While the United States has done many regrettable things and made many even unexcusable mistakes, this same basic inherent evil cannot be said of it. It is not founded or maintained on the same evil principles upon which these countries are. George Bush's statements are accurate and justified. Colin Powell does not claim to know all truth. He does not claim to be sure of what will turn out to be the best method to have dealt with Iraq. He is sure that based on the evidence he believes to be true, it is imperative that the world act at once with firmness and real consequences against Saddam Hussein.

Colin Powell, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and the many other leaders in the coalition are not pursuing war for personal reasons or for dishonourable intentions. They are serving their countries and the world as faithfully as possible. I profoundly admire Prime Minister Tony Blair and his commitment to stand up for what he believes is right, no matter what the cost. If I may quote some of this admirable man's recent words:

"I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour but sometimes it is the price of leadership and cost of conviction."

"If we show weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for prevarication until the moment for action passes, then it will not only be Saddam who is repeating history.
"The menace, and not just from Saddam, will grow; the authority of the UN will be lost; and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody."

These men's intentions are honorable, their intellects are sharp and their dedication to the good of mankind unwavering. I say again, let no one mock or question their loyalties or intentions in this fateful hour. Their information may be in error, just as their analysis of the threat of Saddam Hussein may be inadequate, but their character is not. They may be wrong without being stupid, vengence-bent, or warmongers.

Perhaps the greatest reason to replace Saddam Hussein instead of containing him is for the people of Iraq themselves:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751951.stm

I repeat: I do not claim to know that war is the right course of action right now. I praise decent people everywhere protesting war on the basis that there is insufficent evidence against Iraq. What I cannot accept is mud-slinging against these good men.

[toast]

it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him

It's fact most Americans don't vote at all.

Much protest here in France too, as you could all guess
Saw some extracts of Iraqi TV today - wow ! Astonishing work. Music played while the generals looked at Saddam, with a strange flame dancing in their eye (maybe Im overstating this last point… ).

[Cat]

Please explain to me why you believe it is not. Here is why I believe it is:
16 of the 19 NATO members, including Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are all supporting the U.S. and Turkey in their request to aid Turkey with additional military resources at this time. France, Germany and Belgium are opposed, and Belgium is seeking compromise. This, at minimum, highlights the split within Europe.

The prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and the president of the Czech Republic jointly published their support of the United States in an open letter.

Yes, regrettably there is a split in Europe and yes, most governments are supporting the US, while the majority of the population is not. I can only speak for the Netherlands at the moment: The current government has fallen some time ago and the two major parties that are to form the new government are divided whether supporting the US or not. Thus there can be no clear statement at this moment whether the Netherlands support US thoroughly or not. The majority of the population is however against war, with or without UN support.

It is my impression that most of Europe's leaders believe that Saddam "really does have or is developing nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, really is aiding and abetting terrorists and really is cunning enough to hide these things from inspectors for 'long enough'".

I have to disagree, because both Dr. El Baradei and Dr. Blix have stated clearly that in no way Iraq has or is developing nuclear weapons, although in the past it tried to. Chemical weapons are 'unaccounted for', which can equally mean they don't have them or they have hid them. There are simply no facts of the matter as of now. Thus it seems to me that it would be a good idea to let the inspectors do some more research.

Yes President George Bush is good and no he is not evil. He is good. Not perfect -- good, and striving to do the best he can with many other leaders of the nations of the world to save lives and help rid the world of terrorism.

Again I disagree. There are clear indications that the disarmament of Iraq is not the only reason for the war. Certainly the US as well as many other countries have economical interest in the Middle-East. Bush's motives are not simple and pure. Waging a war on a country in disarray is not a good way of saving lives. Attacking an other nation while not self under attack does no good to the cause of preventing terrorism.

Evil exists and is as real and classifiable as good is.

unless you are a metaphysical realist a statement like this is simply meaningless. Good and bad do not indicate either objectively existing things nor objectively existing properties of things. What is good for me can be bad for you and viceversa. Mors tua, vita mea. Good and bad are categories that are subjective and depend on your personal view of the world, your cultural background, your beliefs, etc. They cannot be absolutely measured.

The moment we lose our ability to classify good and evil is the moment we lose meaning in life.

A nice one-liner. How's this one: Life is neither good nor bad, but interesting.

President Bush is not claiming that every member of the leaders of these countries is pure evil incarnate.

My impression was that he was more or less implying exactly this (Why the plural suddenly though?).

He is putting into simple words the attitude and methodology that needs to be applied in dealing with these countries: they are evil.

I don't agree that any mode of reasoning needs to be applied. I don't see the necessity. Many other people don't see this necessity, like the Iraqis, France, Germany, my humble self...

Their basic tenets and philosophies of government are for the gain and evil purposes of those leading them. They have as a purpose to gain personal power without regard for human life. This is evil.

Ahum, you can easily put Berlusconi among these. He tries (and has partially succeeded) to pass laws that will prevent him from being judged for corruption. He tries to maintain personal power through tinkering with laws. Moreover, I am under the impression that the US have several 'personal' purposes in the Middle-East, like economical interests.

While the United States has done many regrettable things and made many even unexcusable mistakes, this same basic inherent evil cannot be said of it. It is not founded or maintained on the same evil principles upon which these countries are. George Bush's statements are accurate and justified.

Bush's statements are not always accurate or justified. Some are plain wrong. E.g. Iraq poses hardly a threat to the Middle-East let alone to the US.

Colin Powell does not claim to know all truth. He does not claim to be sure of what will turn out to be the best method to have dealt with Iraq. He is sure that based on the evidence he believes to be true, it is imperative that the world act at once with firmness and real consequences against Saddam Hussein.

Neither do I. The US and some European countries differ mainly in how to deal with the issue. The US seem to favor force, France and Germany (and Russia and China) seem to favor diplomacy. Since nobody has a clue on what is the best, we have to find out. First you send inspectors to Iraq to find out the facts, then you debate the facts and decide a policy. America seems a bit hasty to begin shooting though ...

Colin Powell, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and the many other leaders in the coalition are not pursuing war for personal reasons or for dishonourable intentions. They are serving their countries and the world as faithfully as possible.

In the light of the little attention they seem to pay to opinions that differ from their own, again I disagree and stress that all of them have economical interests in the matter. They have not, for instance intervened with the same emphasis in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine or the many civil wars, dictatorships etc. in Africa, where at least as many victims have been made, if the body-count is an argument at all.

I profoundly admire Prime Minister Tony Blair and his commitment to stand up for what he believes is right, no matter what the cost.

I honestly appreciate your directness and candor in stating this. That is a good thing. You have presented many more and better arguments than others in this discussion and personally committed to them. That is admirable. Please don't take my observations as simple mud-slinging or flaming.

These men's intentions are honorable, their intellects are sharp and their dedication to the good of mankind unwavering. I say again, let no one mock or question their loyalties or intentions in this fateful hour. Their information may be in error, just as their analysis of the threat of Saddam Hussein may be inadequate, but their character is not. They may be wrong without being stupid, vengence-bent, or warmongers.

I'm sorry, but I perceive reality a s being different. War is the last resort, they claim. Yet already all the necessary troops are massed at Iraq's frontiers. The countries that want to give the inspectors more time, so errors in the information can be minimized, are regarded almost as traitors. American officials mock France and germany as being 'old-europe', as if to say that they are not to be taken seriously. Bush speeches resemble increasingly those of war-bent fundamentalists. The attack on Afghanistan certainly was nothing more than vengeance. For the reasons that were give at the time of the invasion, the US would have had to attack them years before that! For the same reasons of removing undemocratic and oppressive regimes the US should attack China!

Perhaps the greatest reason to replace Saddam Hussein instead of containing him is for the people of Iraq themselves.

Since Bush Sr. abandoned them to their fate the last time the US was there, I don't think they will be very grateful for the bombs of Liberty and Justice destroying their households and taking their lives...

I repeat: I do not claim to know that war is the right course of action right now. I praise decent people everywhere protesting war on the basis that there is insufficent evidence against Iraq. What I cannot accept is mud-slinging against these good men.

Neither do I. I agree with you. We hold differing views and debate them. If I wanted simply to do a bit of mud-slinging I wouldn't have taken the pains to read your post thoroughly and respond point for point with arguments and reasons.