Arno, I am not offended. We just disagree. How many Europeans did not protest the war? Aren't the protestors a mere drop in the bucket-- a relatively small minority. They have every right to protest, of course. Sometimes Allies can't always agree. They accuse the US of bullying them and we accuse them of dragging their feet. So much for alliances. They don't always hold up across all issues. The US knows more about this situation than all of the European nations combined. Saddam is a sadistic madman of whom the world will be a better place to be rid.
I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but it certainly seems like a large number of people in the UK opposed to the war. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say a majority, but it might be very close. That worries me. Why do you believe that? If you have intelligence, then shouldn't you share it with your allies?
Okay, first of all, I'm not arguing anything...I'm not taking a position here, I am stating facts. If you choose to continue to act as if it's a matter of debate that the US wouldn't enter the war until after Pearl Harbour, or that the war wasn't going on for over 2 years before that, or that Churchill repeatedly asked the US to honor their treaties, fight for 'freedom' and join the fight, or that FDR wasn't repeatedly turned down by Congress and the American people, or that each and every poll/vote whatever was strongly against American involvment pre-Pearl Harbour , or that Hitler declared war on the US, not the reverse, if you want to continue to act as if revisionist Hollywood history somehow makes these events immaterial, or worse still, non-factual, you can go ahead... But how, exactly, do you explain the over 2 year gap between the start of WWII and American involvment in it? And does the fact that the USA only got involved within days of Pearl Harbour strike you as coincidental? Let me hear your version of what happened, I'm truly interested...
the protestors are a smal group but the people who are against a war isn't, the majority in holland is against the war. in spain almost 10% of the population protested. alot of people are against a war but do not protest. so 10% is alot. i agree allies can't always agree. But why should the european side give in and help the war. If the USA has so much information about saddam that it is clear there should be a war, why do not show it to the rest of the world. i also think saddam is the same saddistic madman he was when the USA gave him weapons in his war against Iran. so i''m not sure why we should destroy his country now.
uh...we did...and the response was, "well it doesn't matter what you say because we already know how we're voting on this."
if that was al the information they got, i do not understand why the USA wants a war so bad. There are alot of other country's who got the same weapons that Iraq has.why Iraq? and one thing i forgot the last time i posted. is it worth al the inoccent people who are going to die to get rid of saddam?
1. why iraq? because they started a war in 1991...they invaded another country...and the terms of their surrender included disarming. we enforced those same kinds of provisions against Japan and Germany after WWII. the UN has issued 17 orders calling for the disarmament of Iraq...Saddam has thumbed his nose at the UN for 12 years. at some point, you have to enforce orders, or the body that issues those orders becomes irrelevant on the world scene. 2. saddam has already used these kinds of weapons on innocent people, himself...he used nerve gas on his own people after the end of the war...he's a tyrant...he kills to maintain his power. the US has developed weapons that are strategic and reduce civilian casualties...they plan to drop food, medicine and other aid to the civilians during the midst of these attacks. that's more than the iraqi people have seen from saddam in quite some time. at the end of the day, the nation will be liberated from a tyrant. 3. if that's all the information they got? come on...the guy is playing hide and seek with weapons of mass destruction. he can't account for huge amounts of chemical weapons.
Okay, so now you changed your argument. Do you not see what is going on with North Korea? They have nuclear weapons and are causing a lot of problems over there. They are led by a crazy dictator who is going to demand all types of concessions otherwise he will continue to threaten his neighbors (and us). The difference is North Korea has developed nuclear capability, we can't allow Saddam to do the same.
i do not believe saddam has nuclear weapons. or has the ability to use them, I also doo not believe north korea wil use nuclear weapons. i'm also not impressed by the effect a biological weapon has. or chemical, Like antrax, if i want i could make it in my basement. so every country can have those things. ofcourse i'm against mass destruction weapons, and i think Iraq shoudn't have them, (it is kinda the fault of the USA they have them). i do believe saddam should go away, and there should be a new leader, but it must come from his own country. From rebbels. one question to Mr Clutch, in what way did i change my argument?
haha. ok maybe not me. But i studie biology, and in a clas about biochemistry the proffesor showed us that it is verry easy to make things like antrax, because the are bacteria.and al you need are the spores.so it isn't verry hard, Ofcourse you have to make sure you do not breath.
yeah..it's real easy. that's why the FBI could limit down the pool of people who terrorized the american public with anthrax last year to less than 50. there are about 10 countries (maybe less) with strains of this stuff...they can literally trace back the strain, given its composition, to the country it came from. it's not coca-cola...it's not jello. it's a little harder to come by then you imply.
Well first you were saying that the US doesn't have the evidence. Then when someone said we did, you said that other countries have weapons, so why bother with Iraq? And maybe Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons now, but he wants to build them. That's the problem. You say North Korea won't use them. Maybe not, but jut the fact that a crazy tyrant has them will cause a lot of problems. He will start threatening South Korea. Saddam would invade Kuwait. Do you think it's a good thing that these types of countries have nuclear weapons? How would you deal wiith Saddam?
Mad Max. maybe i made it sound easier than it is. Ofcourse you need to have the bacteria, but if you have them it isn't verry hard, the getting the bacteria is the hard part. but it isn't as hard as you say. atleast that is what my professor told me. if he is wrong than i'm sorry i said it, but i tend to believe my proffesor Mr Clutch i think saddam has weapons, like every other country, but i do not think they have mass extintion weapons, like the USA have or other great countrys. i think it is wrong that any country has nuclear weapons. including the USA. Let me put it this way, i'm more scared that bush destroys the world than that north korea wil do it. north korea wil not have the power. the USA has it already. i'm not saying bush wil destroy the world. but if the USA wil get an idiot as president, than we have a real big problem.
johnheath: After reading your replies... you're still stuck on a key logical fallacy: you construe subjective criteria in an objective manner. It's not possible to check a box and say "there is a security threat" short of an out-and-out invasion. Until that point, there's going to be room for argument. The very type of determination that has to be made defies your construction of it. Sorry, you may believe very strongly that Iraq is a security threat. But to anybody who has any background in deterrence theory... it's not a given. I'm probably rather inclined to even agree with you. But I'm not going to twist logic to suit my beliefs. You can make a persuasive case. But you can't make an objective statement of fact that Iraq is a security threat. Until you can get past that... well, you're going to be irrational.
Just when one thinks we've got an intelligent new conservative... he spouts drivel. Sorry, the sacrifices that GI's made... has nothing to do w/the underlying political reality. You've shown yourself to be irrational. Why bother arguing with those of us that are? Oh well... maybe Trade_Jorge will come back soon.
That's your problem arno_ed. If you really thing Bush is a greater threat than Saddam or North Korea then you are not living in the real world. What will it take for you to realize the threat of Saddam? When he finally has nuclear weapons and starts invading his neighbors? It's just sad that you think the USA and other democracies should be considered on the same moral level as tyrannical dictatorships who think mass murder is a normal part of business. I really don't know what to say to you on that subject.
Mr. C, Good post, but look at it this way. Pretend you live in another country, and you don't trust Bush so much. Put yourself in those shoes and hear him saying "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists!" Sit back and think: who would I want to have incredibly mad at my country? Saddam or George W. Bush? Who has more fire-power and the ability to use it to get what he wants? I'm not saying it's rational, but it might help you see where arno_ed's coming from.
B-Bob, To an extent that may be part of it. Certainly I understand being nervous about a single country being the sole superpower, there's the potential for that country to go nuts. I am very happy more nations have joined in with the US, that way the US will have to listen to other opinions. But how much of it has to do with ignorance and a hatred for the "West"? It seems that on the far left there are still very strong feelings that Western civilization has been about imperialism and conquest and oppression. The way he says that Iraq should be able to have weapons just like USA is just this type of thinking.
