# Is war ever justified?



## TommyWillB (Mar 8, 2003)

It seems a bit odd to ask if war against  Iraq is "justified"... 

Two things seem self-efident to me:
War is never "justified"
Justice is not really one of the things our government/military even bothers taking into account when considering war.


----------



## toast (Mar 8, 2003)

Locate your question in time, using first A-Bomb use as a pivot. Idea est:

- War before 1945 was conceivable (hence, 1939, even though 1933 would have been a better date).
- War after 1945 makes no sense (hence, Vietnam, just to take some well-chosen example).


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

Hey!  Where'd ya get the idea for this poll?  Ha ha...


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

i guess i have to see this 2 ways. i don't see war as ever being 'right'. it's not an answer to any question that i know of. at least not for anyone who values life, human or otherwise.

but is it ever just? i think maybe it is. if someone declares war on someone else, then i think the one who is attacked first is 'justified' in fighting back if they choose. i wouldn't let anyone take a swing at me and just stand there to take the punch. that still doesn't make fighting right. it just means that sometimes someone takes unjustifiable actions that must be stopped in some way. what's right has long since left the picture at that point. the trick is to figure out how to keep everyone acting in a manner that is right before it gets out of hand. 

with long hair and a beard, i must look like quite a threat to some. the airport security always seems to treat me as such. i seem to get 'randomly searched' every time i go in there. as bad as this is, i can live with it given the state of the world. but i almost fear they day they will shoot me first and ask questions later.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 8, 2003)

I agree with Toast, war is an idea that is past its prime.  

Not long ago someone told me that up until the Middle Ages or thereabouts, standard economic theory posited that there was a finite amount of wealth and that the only way to increase one's wealth was to steal from someone else.  This idea soon fell by the wayside and wealth began to increase by leaps and bounds. 

I believe that we are at a similar period in history.  Rather than pour our energies into fuel cells and increasingly efficient solar cells we spend a lot of time and money "defending" and "protecting" oil.  If we were to take all the money that GW plans to spend on a war in Iraq and spend it on research, I think we would soon see the demise of the oil run dictatorships.  Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. are able to be the despotic nations they are because the west is willing to "overlook" their human rights violations in exchange for free access to their oil.   

IMO waging war has always been and will always be about the desire for more economic power and therefore will never be justifiable.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 8, 2003)

Does anyone ever learn history anymore? I'll give everybody a little clue why some times war is the only way, WW I & WW II !


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

yea, but weren't those the wars to end all wars? seems that concept doesn't really work. not to mention that in those wars, the bad guys were the ones who attacked first. so from that 'history lesson', i can pretty much surmise that the US becomes about equal to Germany during those wars if we decide to tell the world to stuff it and start a war. and then how much longer till the world decides they can no longer tolerate us? and thenhow muchlonger after that til GW shows that he really doesn't have any concern for human life, even his own people, and starts pushing buttons to show how powerful he is? 

i can draw a list of 'what if's' just as long as those who support this war that make going into an even scarier thing than not. no war based upon 'what if' could ever be right or justified. it could only be insane.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Satcomer _
> *Does anyone ever learn history anymore? I'll give everybody a little clue why some times war is the only way, WW I & WW II ! *



I'm up on my history. Those wars were started by someone else. Someone invading someone else as I seem to recall in the case of WWII. In the case of WWI, it was the assassination of the leader of Austria Hungary by a Serbian.

Lets see, we are about to invade another country (just like what started WWII), and we are most likely looking to assassinate that countries leader (just like what started WWI).

Bush has no moral high ground in this. He wants to start wars without provocation. At least the *real* President Bush was acting to repel a country which was invading another. That, at least, was a just fight. 

Iraq hasn't invaded anyone. We actually have been keeping Iran from invading Iraq (one of the reasons for not _finishing the job_ originally).

Since Bush took power, we have turned our back on treaties, gone back and dissolved treaties, bullied our allies and now are starting wars as a preemptive measure (but only against countries that can't really fight back). Bush is not considered a trust worthy person (other than to Republicans it seems), and now the rest of the world doesn't trust the US or it's motives anymore. We live in some scary times.

If I have learned anything from history, it is that  Bush has us on the wrong side. Any President that we have had in the last 30 years (if not in the entire history of our nation) would be a better replacement then what we have now.


----------



## toast (Mar 9, 2003)

*RacerX*: _Someone invading someone else as I seem to recall in the case of WWII. In the case of WWI, it was the assassination of the leader of Austria Hungary by a Serbian._

Assassination of archduke François-Ferdinand was only a pretext for a war that was already industrially and economically planned long before his death. To put it simply, WWI is a war about ambition, expansionism, about European countries fighting to ruin their neighbours' colonialist ambitions in Africa and/or South-East Asia.

At the light of these facts, I can't see how WWI can be called a "war [that was]_the only way", Satcomer. WWI is undoubtedly the most stupid event the whole 20th century has known.


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 9, 2003)

_"A war for peace makes about as much sense as f***ing for virginity."   - Unknown._


----------



## symphonix (Mar 9, 2003)

As I'd figure it, justice exists to protect the innocent and punish those who would harm them. Justice is what makes us civilised human beings.

War, on the other hand, is the persecution and murder of people on a mass scale. War is an effort to punish people who have committed no crime other than that of being our enemies. War is what makes us ashamed to be human beings.

Justice is characterised by considering human suffering, and placing the value of our fellow humans higher than anything else.
War is characterised by denying the value of humanity, by cheapening it in favour of religion, politics, fear and greed.

War is the exact opposite of justice. Justice is noble, clean, merciful and symbolic of all the best qualities that we humans have. War is a dirty, vile and repulsive business and it shows us our worst elements.

As such, I'd have to agree completely with TommyWillB on this one ... War is never justified.


----------



## marz (Mar 9, 2003)

War is good for nothing except making money for greedy military arms manufacturers.


----------



## toast (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *"A war for peace makes about as much sense as f***ing for virginity."   - Unknown. *



Refer to fryke's new signature.


----------



## fryke (Mar 9, 2003)




----------



## hulkaros (Mar 9, 2003)

Isn't this text:
"A war for peace makes about as much sense as f***ing for virginity"
from a sign/board which was shown during a demonstration against war by some people (women/girls I think)?

At first I didn't get it but after couple of seconds the message of that board was very clear to me 

Now, I can't say the same think about Mr.Bush and Mr.Gates


----------



## chemistry_geek (Mar 10, 2003)

Ask a WWII Holocost survivor if war is ever justifiable.  Ask him or her if it was fun living in a concentration camp, or if he or she  lost a spouse or children in one.  Then tell me war is never justifiable.

Yes, war is ugly and gruesome, but sometimes it is necessary to get the environment (wether it be political, human rights, etc...) back in balance.

One thing we should ask ourselves when thinking about "justice" is:

Is it a "civilized"  form of revenge?  Who in Iraq is to be dispensed with "justice"?

Should the US Military fly over Iraq, drop billions upon billions of flyers saying that we are invading Iraq to implement a change of government and will respond with force if are forces are attacked?  That seems to a better solution to the problem.  There's no need to kill innocent people, and we all know they will be used as human shields by the Iraqi dictatorship.


----------



## toast (Mar 10, 2003)

Holocaust supervened before nuclear power appeared as the supreme deterring means which has governed internal relations from 1945 to 1991 and who still does in some parts of the world.

Since 1945, war has turned out to be a non-solution to state problems. The first time this was realized was in Korea. The question of war as a solution reached its peak during the Vietnam war: hundreds of diplomats, politicians, teachers, scientists began to realize war was *obsolete*, that it wasn't a means any more, as it had been against fascism.

One of the people who realized that, even though he's far from being a pacifist, is Zbigniew Brzezinski. I'll take him as an example of the international community realizing war is no more efficient to solve nation conflicts, because he has written a very clear book where he details some very interesting points about American foreign policy.

_The Grand Chessboard, America and the rest of the World, by Zbigniew Brzezinsk, member of Washington Geostrategic Studies Institute and former Presidential counsellor (Carter, if I recall well).
(I think the book is published by Public Press in the US. In France, the publisher is called Bayard Presse. date of 1rst publication: 1997)_

BTW I don't know any civilized form of revenge. Revenge is already a primitive concept which has very little to do with civilization.

In brief, war is obsolete. It's used only, as I've already said, by barbaric dictators (such as the one pointed at by Freedom House) to find some immediate solutions to latent problems that deserve negociating and thoughtful compromises.
There's a distinction to make with civil wars here, esp. the form it knows in former colonies (Africa in particular), but it'd be too complex to fit the post .


----------



## Jason (Mar 10, 2003)

i didnt read a whole lot of this thread but i have noticed there seem to be two distinct lines and no middle ground...

War sucks, we all know it, no one wants it...

but justifiable? sometimes it is... this time i dont think so...

when we got bombed by japan in pearl harbor... that was justifiable cause to go to war...

when we got attacked by al quada that was justifiable to go to war (although a different breed)

but to go to war against a country that is fairly crippled, without un support, for bullshit reasons is unjustified IMHO....

sometimes it is, sometimes it aint... you need that answer in yer pole


----------



## chemistry_geek (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *BTW I don't know any civilized form of revenge. Revenge is already a primitive concept which has very little to do with civilization.*



Toast:

That is exactly my point.  Revenge is primitive, yet it is cast upon many criminals in our "modern" society.  If our society was truely just, it would send criminals to hospitals and psychiatric wards to be rehabilitated.  But instead, they are cast into prison to be PUNISHED, a lawful form of revenge, for their actions, often with little medical intervention.  My point on this "justice" discussion is that our society is not perfect, and fails to recognize that not all people are cared for properly to stop the cycle of crime and violence.  It is perpetuated by revenge, an eye for an eye, so to speak.  No matter what you call it, serving out a sentence in prison is a form of revenge by the state, even if it does protect society from the social deviants.  Another point I'm trying to make is that something has to be fundamentally wrong with someone to willfully commit a crime or invoke violence on another individual, whether  the cause is genetic or environmental.


----------



## habilis (Mar 10, 2003)

C'mon people. there's no debate. Except for ENDING Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism, War has Never Solved Anything...

Bottom line is, ours is a world governed by the use of force, and it's the agressors in the world that set all the rules. Take a look at history.

Peace, as shown throughout history, and as history will show in time about our current crisis with out-of-control despot brutal dictators and fundamentalists, is always and only brought about with strength.

The Peace Movement is costing thousands of people their lives. Ask the Holocaust Survivors if war is justified, ask the Iraqi People who are suffering miserably if war is justified. There were peace protestors then trying to get us not to go to war against the Nazi's. They had all the same lingo. It's always the people that have never had any type of real anguish in life, or real suffering that think war is not justified. 

Lazy Americans with the easy luxurious lives they lead never think war is justified until they are the ones being exterminated, which is now a reality right at your doorsteps. some of us woke up on 9|11. Some of us are still asleep.


----------



## edX (Mar 10, 2003)

or you could ask Ghandi how peace works 

and i would disagree about the people who have never had any real anguish being theones to protest war. i think they are just as often the ones who call for war without thinking thru the consequences to others. somebody is going to die in a war. since when is it ok as long as it's not you?


----------



## toast (Mar 10, 2003)

*habilis*, I'm sure Amazon.com sells brilliant history books. This could be a start. *

_Except for ENDING Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism, War has Never Solved Anything_

- Slavery has ended... in Western countries.
- Fascism has ended... in developed countries.
- Nazism has ended... (almost) everywhere.
- Communism has ended... in the USSR and in most of its Western satellites.

- Slavery and esp. child slavery you can still find in Africa (subsaharian) and South Asia (Bangladesh, for instance).
- Fascism still exists under several forms, in Central Asia especially (Turkmenistan, but also former Afghanistan and Ouzbekistan).
- Nazism is a very specific facet of fascism which has known a unique form in 1930s Germany. It had ended before the war, BTW.
- Communism still exists in conventional (political parties: Eastern Europe, Asia) or non-conventional (terrorist guerilleros: South America, Middle-East) movements. The communist state has vanished, the communist spirit (esp. its revolutionary marxist branch) is still very active.

Hence, I call your statement a very much ethnocentric one. The world does not stop at the Pacific Ocean. *

_Ours is a world governed by the use of force, and it's the agressors in the world that set all the rules. Take a look at history._

A second look at history would show you the aggressors are also the losers in the end. And, most of the time, the greatest the empire, the greatest the aggression, the greatest its collapse. History has more than one lessons to teach. *

_ Peace, as shown throughout history, and as history will show in time about our current crisis with out-of-control despot brutal dictators and fundamentalists, is always and only brought about with strength._

- Saddam Hussein is neither out-of-control or fundamentalist.
- Force has already proved powerless against the Iraqi regime. Force will acheminate body bags to America, not victory.

_ The Peace Movement is costing thousands of people their lives._

War movement (bellicism) costed 9 million lives from 1914 to 1918 and 50 million lives in 1934 to 1946.

_Ask the Holocaust Survivors if war is justified, ask the Iraqi People who are suffering miserably if war is justified._

- The Holocaust survivors will tell you that, if Hitler hadn't found any justification to war, their families would still be alive.
- The Iraqi people will tell you the same, replace 'Hitler' by 'Saddam' and 'war' by 'Kuweit invasion'.
Those cases share the fact that the aggressors had no rational reasons to attack. However, they differ completely by the fact WWII was a mix of offensive and defensive operations, while Gulf War was only offensive.

Hence, the comparison is completely fallacious.

_There were peace protestors then trying to get us not to go to war against the Nazi's._

Again, you are mixing up two conflicts *. 1942 and 2003 international relations have strictly nothing in common, your comparison is going nowhere except in the direction of showing you are talking about something for which you have no argumentation but only * passionate bellicism * to provide us with.

_It's always the people that have never had any type of real anguish in life, or real suffering that think war is not justified._

Maybe you should learn about this big thingee called India on your planisphere.

_Lazy Americans with the easy luxurious lives they lead never think war is justified until they are the ones being exterminated, which is now a reality right at your doorsteps._

Wake up, America ! The Iraqis have opened first concentration camp in California ! Wake up and arm ! We musta fight this stinky Saddam !
*.

_some of us woke up on 9|11. Some of us are still asleep._

Some of us take their dreams for realities.

As usual, I'll edit my own writings to add this disclaimer:
- I am not pacifist, I am not anti-American, I am not viscerally against George Bush.
- I have nothing personal against habilis or against anyone here in this board.
- I am ready to truncate my own post if asked either by habilis, by mods/admins or by anyone with a good reason. Ideally, I'd like to be warned about parts of my post which do not suit forums rules, so that I can reformulate them instead of seeing them cut out all of a sudden.


----------



## habilis (Mar 10, 2003)

toast. with all due respect, in America, that reply would be classified as "Talkin loud, Sayin Nothin". Even with all your elitist dribble you made no counterpoint to mine. 

You of all the people in the world should have more respect for America's right to defend itself, but then again how would you know, it's not like your precious Eifle Tower went down with 3,500 dead. It's so easy for you to speak from across the Atlantic, safe and warm with all your Iraqi Oil deals.

Think about how you guys are going to look once the short war is over, and all the secret documents come out about the sinister dealings France had with Saddam. What will the Iraqi people think about you when they find out that France has been buying oil from Saddam, enabling his Grand Palaces and murderous weapons programs to be built while the children starved and died in the streets, selling Saddam parts to make weapons and reactors.

When the war's over(2 months at the longest) and we liberate the Iraqi's(and we will) you're ilk are going to lose all relevance in the world, and no one will listen to another paranoid word you have to say. 

It's going to take 50 years, but eventually the Arabs will rejoice the day America showed them freedom, and brought them out of the dark ages in to a cultural rennaisance, the light of the 21st Century.


Oh yeah and about that Hitler thing - Your Welcome...


----------



## edX (Mar 10, 2003)

habilis - i sit right here on your side of the pacific and agree with almost everything that toast has said about this. let's not confuse the issue with how safe any of us are and aren't. in today's world, no where is 'safe'. that doesn't mean we should pick up our stick and start swinging at the closest target.


----------



## habilis (Mar 10, 2003)

Ed, I have a 2 year old baby girl, she's wonderful, as all children are. I dislike war just as much as anybody, but I don't feel comfortable with the idea that my baby girl will have to deal with this problem when it gets really really big in 10 years and instead of conventional weapon proliferation, we have nuclear proliferation.

I don't feel comfortable going to sleep at night thinking that if I support the anti-war socialist agenda, and we just sweep this thing under the rug, and hope for the best, and don't take care of it right now, then my baby girl may one day pay for our inaction in the next, more dramatic attack with her life. After all, what's to stop them? What do they have to fear?



man I knew I was gonna get in too deep when I saw this post...


----------



## g/re/p (Mar 10, 2003)

If it were up to me, i would nuke the entire
middle east off of the face of the earth.
End of problem.
(**cough cough** sarcasm** cough cough**)


----------



## Trip (Mar 10, 2003)

There is no excuse for war.
Just ask jeesus.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 10, 2003)

It's interesting to see that this poll/thread is much more divided than "Is Iraqi war justified"  

Defending oneself is a lot different than declaring war on another country, and it is always acceptable to defend oneself.  Did we "over" defend ourself in Japan and Germany? and will Saddam "over" defend himself if we attack and if he does, will we be prepared to deal with the consequences?


----------



## edX (Mar 10, 2003)

habilis - i fear for the future of the world as well. i fear that we will get ourselves caught in yet another unresolvable conflict that will still be going when my nearly 14 yo son comes of military age. but what i fear most when i hear reasons like that for the iraqi war is that the terrorists are winning. they have struck us with a fear that leaves us looking for enemies rather than finding them, attacking others first in the name of protection, and rationalizing it all with 'they started it'. As long as america chooses to react this way, the terrorists have won, because they have shown to the world just what irrational bullies we are capable of being.


----------



## habilis (Mar 10, 2003)

When I think of the average people of Iraq; men, women, children and the terrible suffering they have undergone at the hands of Saddam my eyes literally well up. I read a book called Saddams Bombmaker, written by Dr Hamza, Saddams top Nuclear Scientist, a few months ago, and the level of savagery Saddams secret police have wrought on their own people is stunning, even by historical standards. In Dr. Hamzas own words he describes why Saddam wants a nuclear bomb: "To use as a doomsday weapon on Israel if he is mortally threatened" It's this man and his band of killers that we have the big problem with. I think we can all agree on that.

But Ed, I'm proud to be an American, we feed the world, we clothe the world, we educate and empower the impoverished.  I'm not going to sink into the guilt trap perpetrated on us by the communists among us that seek to bring everyone into equal misery, rather then the natural balance of powers and wealth we now have.

Communism fails miserably every time it's tried.

After we liberate Iraq you can expect a rise in terrorism for a short while, the fundamentalists aren't going to be happy about "infadels" on their holy land. But the thing is, there going to attack us ANYWAY.

History will show we were right. Have faith.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Peace, as shown throughout history, and as history will show in time about our current crisis with out-of-control despot brutal dictators and fundamentalists, is always and only brought about with strength. *



You know I don't agree with Bush and the Republican Party that much, but I wouldn't go so far as to label them an _out-of-control despot brutal dictator and fundamentalists_.

 

Okay, maybe I would.


----------



## habilis (Mar 10, 2003)

well race, at least your enjoying your freedom of speech today. A lot of people out there in the oppressed 3rd world are wishing right now that they could say things just as perverted, and just as proudly, but luckily they have people like you protecting and standing up for their oppressors.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 11, 2003)

You want to talk about perverted? Lets look at some of your fascist gems.



> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *You of all the people in the world should have more respect for America's right to defend itself, but then again how would you know, it's not like your precious Eifle Tower went down with 3,500 dead. It's so easy for you to speak from across the Atlantic, safe and warm with all your Iraqi Oil deals. *



Actually terrorism is more a part of daily life in Europe. France as had far more to deal with than the US ever has. And as I recall, wasn't there a plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower that was stopped on the ground when the terrorist were trying to refuel?

And why are we looking out side of our country for the terrorist elements? Oklahoma City didn't start this type of insane panic. Why? It really should have, because it could be that the next great act of terrorism is going to come from the guy next door (or someone returning from Gulf War II).



> *...anti-war socialist agenda, *



Socialist. Communist. Are you watching Bush propaganda films or something? The mind set that if we don't agree with you we must be given some label with a negative connotation, is more dangerous than any act of terrorism. That is the exact type of thing that lifted the Nazis to power. 

What next? Book burnings?



> *But Ed, I'm proud to be an American, we feed the world, we clothe the world, we educate and empower the impoverished. *



We (under Bush) ignore and break treaties, and bully smaller nations. We (under Bush) have generated more mistrust in the US than has ever existed. We (under Bush) have become a rogue nation that sees no reason to follow the international laws and treaties that we (before Bush) worked so hard to create.

You really should fear for the future of your daughter. She is going to have to live with your mistakes longer than you.


----------



## edX (Mar 11, 2003)

this seems to be making the rounds. it just seems to fit about here - 

If You're Happy And You Know It Bomb Iraq - by John Robbins 

 If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq. 
 If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq. 
 If the terrorists are frisky, 
 Pakistan is looking shifty 
 North Korea is too risky, 
 Bomb Iraq. 

 If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq. 
 If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq 
 So to hell with the inspections, 
 Let's look tough for the elections, 
 Close your mind and take directions 
 Bomb Iraq. 

 It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq. 
 To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq. 
 They've got weapons we can't see, 
 And that's all the proof we need, 
 If they're not there, they must be there, 
 Bomb Iraq. 

 If you never were elected, bomb Iraq. 
 If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq. 
 If you think Saddam's gone mad, 
 With the weapons that he had, 
 And he tried to kill your dad, 
 Bomb Iraq. 

 If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq. 
 If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq. 
 If your politics are sleazy, 
 And hiding that ain't easy, 
 And your manhood's getting queasy, 
 Bomb Iraq. 

 Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq 
 For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq 
 Disagree? We'll call it treason 
 Let's make war not love this season 
 Even if we have no reason 
 Bomb Iraq


----------



## edX (Mar 11, 2003)

> But Ed, I'm proud to be an American, we feed the world, we clothe the world, we educate and empower the impoverished.



sadly, if we spent half the money on food, clothing and education that will be spent on any war effort, then we would empower a lot more people. we don't even do a decent job of educating our own anymore. budget problems - cut education. increase military spending and find a war. which insures 2 things - depletion of the work force surplus and that those who have power will retain it without challenge from those 'below' them.

let's feed, clothe and educate our own instead of killing others. 

peace.


----------



## toast (Mar 11, 2003)

Hello habilis.

*habilis *: _toast. with all due respect, in America, that reply would be classified as "Talkin loud, Sayin Nothin". Even with all your elitist dribble you made no counterpoint to mine. _

Well, as your first post had strictly no interesting content, it was very hard for me to build a documented counterpoint. I would like you to read back your first post, then mine, then tell me who's "talking loud and saying nothing".
I'll add this expression exists in the rest of the world.
Finally, if evoking country names is 'elitist dribbling' for you... *.

_You of all the people in the world should have more respect for America's right to defend itself, but then again how would you know, it's not like your precious Eifle Tower went down with 3,500 dead. It's so easy for you to speak from across the Atlantic, safe and warm with all your Iraqi Oil deals._

So, what should I do ? Shut up and let you take your revenge ? Come on, is that Prehistory ?!
- First, attacking Iraq is way different from repyling to 9/11 attacks.
- Moreover, we French people know what terrorism is about too, even though we've got no Twin Towers equivalent we had bombs in the metro for example.
- From where I stand, *you* are the one on the other side of the Atlantic, safe and warm with all his Iraqi oil deals.

_Think about how you guys are going to look once the short war is over_

LOL, that was what WWI French soldiers leaving their families said when they left their homes in 1914. If you remember well, Vietnam war was supposed to last 6 months, Bosnia and Chechnya were supposed to be kind of Blizkriegs, Afghanistan was supposed to be an immediate and ponctual response to 9/11.
Instead of that, WWI lasted 4 years, Vietnam wars lasted almost thirty years, Bosnia lasted over ten years, Chechnya has not stopped yet and Bin Laden is still training his factions.

_all the secret documents come out about the sinister dealings France had with Saddam._

Is that supposed to be a threat ? I am much more worried about the sinister dealings USA had with Saddam that will come out. You see, as France does not support war, the Saddam administration has all interest in burning dealings between France and Iraq, whereas it has all interest in producing as much evidence as it can that USA has secret interests in Iraq.

In brief, you should the one worrying. I'm not even sure you should be, though: we already know 90% of the US/Hussein secret agreements. Compared to them, French/Iraqi oil deals almost seem honest.

_What will the Iraqi people think about you when they find out that France has been buying oil from Saddam, enabling his Grand Palaces and murderous weapons programs to be built while the children starved and died in the streets, selling Saddam parts to make weapons and reactors._

Is this a desperate attempt to make me laugh ? Nine weapons out of ten in Iraq are US-made. The chemical patents and research programs were built from American ones. Is this a real trace of ignorance from you ? Didn't you know Iraqi WMDs are based on the stuff your own country taught them to build up ?

_When the war's over(2 months at the longest) and we liberate the Iraqi's(and we will) you're ilk are going to lose all relevance in the world, and no one will listen to another paranoid word you have to say. _

- The very simple fact you think a war with a country like Iraq can last for 2 months only shows what you know * about Iraq, about Middle East conflicts in general and about the history your own country shares with Iraq.

- The USA are the ones losing all relevance here. 

First, they show total inefficience in international relations to rally other coutries to their cause (except for Great-Britain, well, I won't comment on that ).
Moreover, they confirm the fact they're completely stubborn and blind as well as inconscient and obnoxious by announcing a unilateral war on Iraq is they don't get what they want by diplomatic means, which demonstrates the Bush administration total inaptitude and 'hawk' (read: bellicist) nature.
On top of that, the USA are showing to the whole Third World they are no model to follow to build an intelligent, pacifist country. They had already lost most relevance before 1991, but now that they are the only superpower left and still acting as dumb bellicists, their model is slowly collapsing.

- To end, the word 'paranoid' applies to the guys who shout Saddam is a threat and that he should be bombed as soon as possible, not to the guys who say peace is still conceivable without war.
*Your* administration is trying to make Saddam appear as threat, mine is not. *Your* administration is making comparison between terrorism and Iraq, aiming at scaring the US people that tomorrow, if they don't go to war with Iraq, they'll receive some other planes on the head. *Your*_administration is hence using well-known techniques of what can be called state terrorism to alarm the people and to justify, in the most pathetic way, their deplorable war project.
The USA are the world most well-known paranoids, sorry to tell you that. Don't you remember anti-communist propaganda ? McCarthyism ? "Argh ! The reds will invade us if we don't strik'em now !", "Argh! The Viets will come and kill our children if we don't beat'em today !"... Do you think I'm inventing those ? Do I need to give you more history books reference ? Or would that be too 'elitist' for you to open a book ? 

_It's going to take 50 years, but eventually the Arabs will rejoice the day America showed them freedom, and brought them out of the dark ages in to a cultural rennaisance, the light of the 21st Century.5_

Yeah ! True ! And a hundred flowers will bloom ! And Islam will get 50 stars on its green flag ! Yeah ! And jihad will turn into football and prayer into ...
Please, don't sound * like this again. Read again what you wrote: you sound like Mao preaching for the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which was opposite of what one can call 'renaissance'. The light of the 21rst century... 
I can't understand how your own country's history has not taught you war has never brought any light to the world since 1945. 

(I'm secretely imagining an Arab fundamentalist: "Hiya people, my name is Muhammad, I'm an Syrian terrorist, and you know what ? The day Bush nuked Iraq, I saw the light: that was freedom ! Getting bombed is being liberated ! Yes ! So please US, bomb Syria so we can be free too"  )

_Oh yeah and about that Hitler thing - Your Welcome... _

What an adequate end to your post. * I could not expect less from you.

Usual Toast Disclaimer (now well known as UTD  ): 
 - I am not pacifist, I am not anti-American, I am not viscerally against George Bush. 
 - I have nothing personal against habilis or against anyone here in this board. 
 - I am ready to truncate my own post if asked either by habilis, by mods/admins or by anyone with a good reason. Ideally, I'd like to be warned about parts of my post which do not suit forums rules, so that I can reformulate them instead of seeing them cut out all of a sudden.

This post is somewhat offensive. I'll understand all requests for reformulation. But please mods/admins, ask me instead of just cutting it out ! I'll promise I'll modify it quickly .


----------



## toast (Mar 11, 2003)

Still answering *habilis*.

Do you know throwing bombs on Iraq will multiply the terrorists' will for revenge ? You are increasing the risk for your daughter, not decreasing it.

In fact, Iraq is one of the very few countries not to support state terrorist organizations in the whole Middle East. Iraq has thus no terrorist reply to your bombs. But believe me, the rest of the Arab world counts many terrorist organizations that will answer back to your bombs...

Don't you understand this war logic has no sense ? Can't you compare it with the Israel/Palestine problem ?
Israel opens new colony > Palestine terrorists reply with a bomb > In return, Tsahal invades Gaza strip and kill a few people > In return, Palestine terrorists reply with another bomb > Violence increases, popular upheaval rises, chances for peace and calm decreases...
*

I need to add somewhere in this post Saddam has no nuclear power as of today, as proven by UN inspections. Suspicion is not enough to bomb a country.

_I'm proud to be an American, we feed the world, we clothe the world, we educate and empower the impoverished._

Who do you think you are ? The "white man and his heavy burden" ?

Was it useful to precise you are a neo-colonialist ? The rest of your posts already shows it.
- You feed the world but also ruin Indian agriculture with transgenic wheat.
- You clothe the world but also provide us with shoes you ask Indonesian children under 8 to make for you.
- You educate the world with what ? With war ? What about your own people ? You think they're educated ? Why don't you take a look at world stats about US education ? PISA studies ? OECD statistics ? Percentage of Americans going to university ?
Clue: 26% 15-yrs old Americans unable to locate their own country on a map . Germany: 27%  . France: 17% . Source: 2001 PISA study.

_Communism fails miserably every time it's tried._

Colonialism fails miserably every time it's tried too... Not to say the USA are colonialist nor neocolonialist (same statements can easily apply to my won country ).

_After we liberate Iraq you can expect a rise in terrorism for a short while, the fundamentalists aren't going to be happy about "infadels" on their holy land. But the thing is, there going to attack us ANYWAY._

So you say you represent the civilized world and your only answer to the Iraq problem is to bomb them ?
Also, 'infidels' take an 'i'. 

_History will show we were right. Have faith._

Cold War has shown bellicism has no more sense. I have no faith in war. *


----------



## toast (Mar 11, 2003)

*Ed* wrote: _Let's feed, clothe and educate our own instead of killing others. 

peace._

I think we all agree here.


----------



## edX (Mar 11, 2003)

this thread is very hard for me to moderate as i am so involved in it. but i would like to ask everyone to read back over their last few posts and pplease remove any comments that belittle or question the intelligence of other members participating in it. there are no reasons for us to start throwing verbal stones at each other here. the unfortunate fact is that our words here are not likely to change anything by themselves, much less what is going to happen or not. let's at least try to face this froma  higher ground and not from the fears we have of those who see it differently than we do.

again, peace.


----------



## toast (Mar 11, 2003)

My posts did contain many "comments that belittle or question the intelligence of other members", esp. the one I was answering. They have been replaced by * stars.

Thanks for involving the members in censorship. I could not expect better way to moderate this forum than to ask its members to engage their self-responsibility and cut their own sayings.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Mar 11, 2003)

The real reason we are going to war with Iraq (Satire):

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/satire/explainified.htm


----------



## habilis (Mar 11, 2003)

ok, I apologize for the Hitler crack, that was a low blow. 

But, toast where did you get the idea that we are going to colonize Iraq? Colonize Iraq!? O yeah like we colonized Afganistan? Afganistan is much better off now, just ask it's citizens. Iraq will be better off too, with no American colonization whatsoever. The oil and it's revenues will be left to the Iraqi People. The poeple will no longer be oppressed, the children will no longer be starving and dying in the streets, the kurds will no longer have to live in daily fear of their lives and toture.

Why is this bad? Why do you resist this change so stridently? I am simply amazed.

We will be welcomed with open arms.

Iraq will serve as a beacon of hope for all opressed people of the middle east.


----------



## TommyWillB (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *Toast:
> 
> That is exactly my point.  Revenge is primitive, yet it is cast upon many criminals in our "modern" society.  If our society was truely just, it would send criminals to hospitals and psychiatric wards to be rehabilitated.  But instead, they are cast into prison to be PUNISHED, a lawful form of revenge, for their actions, often with little medical intervention.  My point on this "justice" discussion is that our society is not perfect, and fails to recognize that not all people are cared for properly to stop the cycle of crime and violence.  It is perpetuated by revenge, an eye for an eye, so to speak.  No matter what you call it, serving out a sentence in prison is a form of revenge by the state, even if it does protect society from the social deviants.  Another point I'm trying to make is that something has to be fundamentally wrong with someone to willfully commit a crime or invoke violence on another individual, whether  the cause is genetic or environmental. *


It is my impression that the criminal justice system seeks justice for the victim and not so much the criminal... If the criminal comes out rehabilitated, that's a bonus.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TommyWillB _
> *It is my impression that the criminal justice system seeks justice for the victim and not so much the criminal... If the criminal comes out rehabilitated, that's a bonus. *



And the cycle continues, no one is helped, society is no better off, and the victim is no better off.  It's a lose-lose situation.  Sure the victim feels good because "justice" was served (revenge by the state placed on the criminal), but the root cause of the crime goes uncorrected in most cases, and it will be committed by the same person or a different person. History repeats itself and people question why society or world is the way it is.

This further extends to war with other nations.  There is more than enough psychological science to explain the thinking and rationale behind politics, political motivation, power, greed, acquisition of resources, etc... that we should recognize when certain people come into power who abuse their power and try to manipulate public opinion to sustain their power.  This serves no good (leads to political and economic instability) and has previously lead to war.  The rise to power of Hitler is an excellent example.


----------



## fryke (Mar 11, 2003)

I've given it all so much thought. I've listened to so many politicians and political science educated people in the past few weeks... I've heard the pros and the contras. But it all boils down to some very, very simple things for me. Yes, I know, simple ain't good, but:

1. War is bad. People get hurt, they even die sometimes. On both sides.

2. The Bush government says they'll go and attack Iraq even if the UN says 'no'. This is something that makes me think the UN should start and restrict the USA's weapons of mass destruction. Some resolution for this USA-problem MUST be found.

3. People say that Iraq will be better off after a war than before. (They certainly can't mean the dead bodies, though, can they?) Wonder what they'd say if somebody was to bomb their home town with an argument like that...


----------



## edX (Mar 11, 2003)

> 3. People say that Iraq will be better off after a war than before. (They certainly can't mean the dead bodies, though, can they?) Wonder what they'd say if somebody was to bomb their home town with an argument like that...



the cross cultural ignorance of the average american is still appalling. we still want to decide what is 'best' for other peoples based upon on our norms and beliefs. we fail to grasp that anyone would possibly have their own views on their own culture that differ from ours. the people of vietnam were going to be so much better off for our presence there, but the mass majority of vietnamese were fighting against us. and the ones we were supposedly helping, were primarily abandoned when we pulled out - more victims of our occupation than recipients of a better way of life. if a people are not strong enough nor motivated enough to 'liberate themselves', there is likely little chance that lasting change would take place. instead, in 50 years or less, we simply have a different minority oppressing the majority. but wait, isn't that the history of Iraq as is? didn't Sadam come to power thru one of our supported, so called 'liberations'?


----------



## toast (Mar 11, 2003)

> _habilis asked:_
> toast, where did you get the idea that we are going to colonize Iraq?



_"I'm proud to be an American, we feed the world, we clothe the world, we educate and empower the impoverished."_ is basic colonialist speech.


----------



## doemel (Mar 11, 2003)

_this thread is very hard for me to moderate as i am so involved in it. but i would like to ask everyone to read back over their last few posts and pplease remove any comments that belittle or question the intelligence of other members participating in it. there are no reasons for us to start throwing verbal stones at each other here. _


I think those who have to sink to the level of throwing verbal stones at others discredit themselves since it is very often a sign of lack of better arguments.
It's frustrating but true that instead of questioning a person's intelligence you have much more reason today to question their source/lack of information. Although I'm from Switzerland I am currently in Toronto, Canada and I get to compare the Canadian TV coverage of the whole Iraq issue with their US counterpart. I also read European print media on the web. I have come to realize that I can't blame any American of lack of intelligence or anything of the like when I see how one sided their media coverage is! Watching CNN for more than 15 minutes gives me a headache and I won't even start trashing FoxNews. 
So, again, it's not about intelligence, it's about lack of adequate information!



P.S.: Did I just throw a verbal stone at US media? Well, if I did, it's nothing personal in any case...


----------



## toast (Mar 11, 2003)

Very right, doemel, very right.


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 11, 2003)

Peace, man.


----------



## edX (Mar 11, 2003)

just to reinforce this idea that we can't always assume that others see the world the way we do -



> CAIRO, Egypt - Iraqi dissidents have put together a petition of more than 200 exiles who oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq and think President Saddam Hussein could be forced to resign.



for the complete story, 
click here. 

of course, it must be noted that the leader of this statement is a communist, so i suppose their views don't really count. 

on the other hand, these are people who have experienced the oppression first hand. something no one here is able to claim i believe.


----------



## habilis (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *"I'm proud to be an American, we feed the world, we clothe the world, we educate and empower the impoverished." is basic colonialist speech. *



lol, right, we want to colonialize a wasteland in the middle of a dessert, surrounded by 300 million proud muslims, kill off all the men and children, rape the women and create our own breed of sand loving superamerican.

lol, right, so you're saying that anyone that says their proud to be an American is a colonialist! HA! that statement is screaming bitterness, hatefullness, unhappiness, and above all, jealousy.

It's only a matter of a few weeks now before the Iraqi's are throwing down their weapons and kissing their American Liberators. There will always be anti-america people like you around, and after this war is won and the world returns to stability and happiness and prosperity, you and your ilk will become a vestigal organ, a curiosity, like all these thug dictators comming to an end.

You can expect to see a lot of this in the months to come:


----------



## doemel (Mar 11, 2003)

_lol, right, we want to colonialize a wasteland in the middle of a dessert, surrounded by 300 million proud muslims, kill off all the men and children, rape the women and create our own breed of sand loving superamerican.

lol, right, so you're saying that anyone that says their proud to be an American is a colonialist! HA! that statement is screaming bitterness, hatefullness, unhappiness, and above all, jealousy._

Of course I can't speak for toast but I think when he called Americans colonialists he didn't mean the "proud to eb American" part of your sentence. Everyone can be proud of her/his country, but should be critical about what his/her country does. Anything your statement about being proud of your country could be is nationalist, something I'm not implying, though!


_It's only a matter of a few weeks now before the Iraqi's are throwing down their weapons and kissing their American Liberators. There will always be anti-america people like you around, and after this war is won and the world returns to stability and happiness and prosperity, you and your ilk will become a vestigal organ, a curiosity, like all these thug dictators comming to an end._


I bet it won't, but I guess only the future will prove you wrong. Let's talk about this in a year or two.


----------



## Jason (Mar 11, 2003)

1) colonize... that seems to be a misintepretation by many....

we wouldnt colonize it, although we would put in a puppet government, in which case there is a huge difference...

2) Saddam as a threat.... saddam isnt much of a threat to us, he hasnt been proven to be connected to al quaeda. he is a threat to surrounding nations though, although less than previous years due to a pretty tight watch on him by the world.

3) Iraq better off.... not too sure on this one, there will be heavy civilian loss, some will appreciate being "freed" some will hold hatred for the losses of their loved ones. currently every iraqi gets fed for pretty damned cheap, which is better than what the people of north korea can say as they are mostly starving....

also i dont think anyone here has lived *in* a war... we as americans have never had our country touched besides 9/11 we have always been rather disconnected from wars... those people over there will have to live through the war, their food supplies will be cut/diminished for a while (although sadaam is increasing food to the citizens to prepare them a bit) their jobs will be in jeopardy, most importantly during a war, their lives will be in jeapordy, before saying "they will be better off with war" think a little bit as to what is actually like to live *in* a war... this is a big reason why i personally think we should try as hard as possible to avoid a war with anyone, we havent been attacked by saddaam, he hasnt threatened us (at least not until we start doing  that to him), is he the nicest, cleanest man on the planet? no... but he does provide for his country, and if we take to war against them because we feel he is a threat, then we are being rather selfish, innocent lives will be lost

like someone mentioned earlier... how would you like living in an area where when you walk outside you see bombers flying over heard dropping missles on near by buildings? it wouldnt be fun....

4) the whole french debacle... this is ridiculus... the french supplied iraq with weapons in the 70's big deal... we supplied them in the 80's, also we helped give training and education to bin laden as well, if you want to go there... really bringing up past relationships that can be looked back upon and frowned upon is IMHO rather foolish... french are no less to blame for iraq's weapons as we, the soviet union or anyone else are

remember hindsight is 20/20

----

again IMHO war should be a last resort, democratic solutions should be exhausted, double exhausted and then triple exhausted, if there is no threat of violence, then why create one?

its all very sickening that this is all happening, i dearly hope it will be swift and accurate for all involved


----------



## Cat (Mar 12, 2003)

Colonization comes in two flavors: you go there to live there or you control the place to harvest its resources. The coloniztion Toast is talking about is rather the second type methinks. Moreover "colonialism" can be taken in metaforical sense, in that the US export and even impose their own cultural values on others. In this sense the statement "we feed, educate and clothe the world" is indeed colonialist.

I answered NO to the poll. This implies that even when there are reasons for a war or this particular war is approved by the majority of the UN security council, it still is my opnion that overall ther is no neccessary and sufficient consition to make a war just.
Justice seeks balance and equality, war domination and subdual. In seeking justice within a modern democracy a citizen defer to a higher authority to which all partecipants, criminal and victim alike, have previously agreed. In the particular case of Iraq, one country (the US) has accused another (Iraq) of breaking the rules. The "tribunal" (the UN) is investigating the matter. Justice is something that can take a long time, but the procedure by which it is carried out is what makes the outcome right. The US eveidently do not want to wait for the verdict, but have decide "to take  justice into their own hands" which is also breaking the rules. Hence a war like this cannot be just. If the UN find proof that Iraq has in fact broken the rules, there are various possibilities, bobe of which imply neccesarily a war. In this case the prohibited weapons Iraq possesses will have to be destroyed and this is already being done. Iraq has already agreed to most of the terms the UN has put forward and discussion is underway on the rest. Negotiations are being amde even now about possible "material breaches". Iraq is innocent until proven guilty. If the US decide to attack on the basis of mere suspicions, again this would contradict one of the fundamental principles of justice. This however is largely metaforic, since international law differs a lot from simple national law. However, a fundamental principle of the UN states "not to attack unless attacked". 


> Posted by Fryke:
> 2. The Bush government says they'll go and attack Iraq even if the UN says 'no'. This is something that makes me think the UN should start and restrict the USA's weapons of mass destruction. Some resolution for this USA-problem MUST be found.


 I agree. If the US breach with the principles of the UN, action must be taken against them. We cannot have the last remaining superpower starting wars around the globe unchecked. Somekind of embargo or partial disarmament should be imposed on them by the UN. Maybe even a short period of UN government to enforce the neccessary changes, like reduction of military expenditures, control of the nuclear program, rehabilititation of international treaties, like on the International Court at the Hague, non-proliferation, Kyoto etc. I suppose the US would have to close some military bases abroad too.


----------



## moav (Mar 12, 2003)

WHY THIS WAR, WHAT MOST SEEM TO BE FORGETTING *urgent*

After WWII and before 1947 Gold and the Pound where the traditional fixed currencies

1947-1971 Dollar replaced pound and linked to Gold reserve

1960s OPEC born standardized on U.S. dollar, penalties for cheating countries (U.S. not member, though large profits due to currency conversions to U.S. and asset purchase requirements by OPEC nations back to U.S.)

1971 Nixon de-linked Gold Standard

1970 OPEC becomes force in World 

1972-74 Nam, OPEC embargo, oil prices increase 4 fold, high inflation, Nixon impeached, OPEC countries acquire vast amounts of U.S. dollars deposited in European Banks

1980 OPEC planning on dumping dollar, Reagan and U.S. dollar revitalized, OPEC keeps U.S. dollar 

1992 Mastricht Treaty EU and Euro born

1999 Euro goes into use

2002 U.N approves Iraq motion for food-for-oil sales based on Euro not dollar, U.S. keeps quiet

WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT

2003 Iran now will switch from dollar to Euro causing panic in the states; dollar becomes devalued. NATO and EU veto war.

2004 Japan in trouble sells 10% of U.S. Treasury Securities, U.S. inflation, dollar devalues, OPEC standardizes on EURO, dollar spirals out of control, gas prices increase due to U.S. inability to subsidize gas prices at home. More countries join EU

2005 Britain joins EU, U.S. import/export reversal

SOLUTIONS

Going to war now may allow U.S. economy to hobble along for another few years but slowly America and it's economy will not be nearly as robust as last 50 years after OPEC standardizes on Euro.

U.S. must step back and realize now is the time for us to join the global economy or face dire consequences. Yes, we won't be at the top anymore but we have other resources to thrive.


----------



## toast (Mar 12, 2003)

*habilis*, you laugh more than you think in your last post. And that's a shame.

_lol, right, we want to colonialize a wasteland in the middle of a dessert, surrounded by 300 million proud muslims, kill off all the men and children, rape the women and create our own breed of sand loving superamerican. _

- lol, you already tried that in 1991.
- lol, if those people represent so little interest to you, why is that the second US offensive on them ?

_lol, right, so you're saying that anyone that says their proud to be an American is a colonialist! HA! that statement is screaming bitterness, hatefullness, unhappiness, and above all, jealousy. _

Doemel just replied to this point and I agree with his post 100%. Plus, I'm not anti-American. Plus, I'm very happy from where I stand. Plus, I'm anything but jealous of the US.

_It's only a matter of a few weeks now before the Iraqi's are throwing down their weapons and kissing their American Liberators._

Do you remember _The Matrix_ movie ? Well, I think you've taken the blue pill, habilis.
What you are talking about is *fiction*, *illusion*, *dream*, *theory*. Reality is completely different.

Do I need to give you my examples again ?
- WWI was supposed to last three months.
- Vietnam, like Iraq, was supposed to be as short liberation conflict.
- Afghanistan was supposed to be an immediate response to 9/11.
But those are suppositions ! Get back on Earth, realize that even one bomb in Iraq will cause such a trauma and will trigger such a response from Iraq itself, from the Middle-East, from Europe, from the UN, that the Iraqis are *very* far from shouting Bush liberated them.

Don't you know the Iraqi people has been *starving to death* since 1991 because of your country's embargo ? Don't you know there's a statue in Bagdad which represents Saddam walking on Bush Snr.'s chopped head ?

As stated by Morpheus: _"Do you think that's air you're breathing ?"_, I'll ask you:
Do you think that's reality you see on FOX News and hear in Bush propaganda ?

You are missing one thing: multilateral sources of information. I have no other advice to give you. In a sense, I pity your lack of clairvoyance on this topic, I assure you. And, last but not least, I'll repeat this statement is directed towards you and not against America. Don't tell me I'm anti-American again, people around here know that I'm not. I'm against war, and war is not America, neither is it Bush: those are easy amalgams, I do *not* believe such crap. Period.

_There will always be anti-america people like you around, and after this war is won and the world returns to stability and happiness and prosperity, you and your ilk will become a vestigal organ, a curiosity, like all these thug dictators comming to an end._

Now I'm the one laughing. _The world returns to stability and happiness and prosperity_... You really should ask Bush for a job as speech writer, you're perfect.
I think this thread and your, hm... *thoughtful, clearsighted replies* to it will become a very interesting 'curiosity' in a month or two. Guess why .

_You can expect to see a lot of this in the months to come: (attachment: a pro-US rally picture)_

Well, you can expect to see a lot of this (Vancouver), of this (Paris), a lot of this (Germany) and also a lot of this (UK) or this (Seattle).
Maybe a good thing to do would be taking your calculator and a sheet of white paper and start counting who agrees with war against Iraq on this Earth. After you'll have written "Bush administration +50% population", "Isreali administration + 60% population", "Tony Blair" and "Jose Maria Aznar", you'll be almost done.
Note: this is caricature, nota bene.

This post applies to UTD rules (see previous posts  ).


----------



## toast (Mar 12, 2003)

*moav*: _SOLUTIONS

Going to war now may allow U.S. economy to hobble along for another few years but slowly America and it's economy will not be nearly as robust as last 50 years after OPEC standardizes on Euro. _

There's much truth in this statement. Even Alan Greenspan, who did support Bush's reform plan in first place, is now telling journalists he has very very strong doubts about it.
A declaration signed by 400 economists and 10 Nobel Prizes (incl. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank director and Clinton lead economist) also states the economic situation of the US will become very preoccupying if Bush persists in his war plans.
The dollar has already dramatically dropped this week; Nasdaq has reached its lowest level for last 5 years, CAC40 has reached its lower level for last 20 years, USD has dropped far beyond Euro value ('far' being, in economic terms, a variation of .1 point yesterday, of 0.06 this morning, etc.). USD has even fell down to 0.90Euro a few days ago.


----------



## toast (Mar 12, 2003)

... And puppet governments (ie. satellite governments in Cold War terms) are part of what Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Richer, as well as Noam Chomsky (but I know many US people think he's a complete dummy) call neocolonialism in their various studies.

But this debate is worth another thread.


----------

