I'm sorry if you did not understand what i said. i'm not putting the USA on the same level as Iraq.I do not think saddam is such a threat as Bush shows. the point i was trying to make (but failed misserably) is that the way bush threatens his allies is something to be afraid about. í just say that IF someday an idiot for some bizar reason becomes president than we have a huge problem. ' i d not trust Bush verry much, like i said in others threads i think he does not think enough about the interest of the world.I do not think he want to attack Iraq because he thinks it is better for the world. he attacks them because he wants to sontrol the oil, and he wants to finnish what his father has started. north korea wil not use nuclear weapons, they are to scared. the thing i said about Bush being a greater threat to the world than saddam wasn't verry smart, atleast not the way i said it. ofcourse i think saddam is an idiot, and should be gone. but i think Bush has so much power, he has the power to destroy the world, saddam doesn't. and like B-bob said the part about being with the USA or with the terorist scares me. And if bush starts to call the countrys who do not agree with the usa meaningles, and ancient, it scares me. i hope i explaint why i said what i said. sorry if i wasn't clear
DID I SAY THAT??????? i defenitly didn't mean that if i said that. Ofcourse i trust saddamles than i trust Bush. i want the most that iraq doesn't have weapons at all, but i'm not sure that the weapons they have now are worth starting a war over
Arno, Sorry for misreading what you said. But when you say the US and countries shouldn't have these weapons- why not? They are used for self- defense not for invading other countries like Saddam or North Korea would use them. As far as being scared of Bush, I understand people being scared of unintended consequences. But it's ignorant to say Bush wants to control the oil or he is just an idiot trying to finish what his father started. And what is your alternative for dealing with Saddam?
In the 1920s and 1930s the term isolationism came into widespread denigrating use, but the majority continued to oppose involvement in European wars and alliances. The Senate Investigation of the Munitions Industries in 1934-1936 and adoption of the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, and 1937 marked a high point in the political defense of those policies. Isolationism was strongest in rural and small-town America in the Midwest and Great Plains and among Republicans more than among Democrats. It won a substantial following among Irish-Americans and German-Americans. Among its most prominent spokesmen were Western agrarian progressives such as William E. Borah of Idaho, Hiram Johnson of California, Burton K. Wheeler of Montana, Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota, and Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of Wisconsin. They denounced eastern urban business, financial, ideological, and political elites for involvement in European affairs. The year 1940 marked a turning point for isolationists. German military triumphs in Europe and the Battle of Britain forced widespread American reconsideration of its relation to the war. Many worried that if Germany and Italy triumphed in Europe and Africa, and Japan triumphed in East Asia, the Western Hemisphere could be the next target. Even if America withstood assaults, its democracy, freedom, and economy could be traumatized in the "fortress America" it might have to maintain to guard its security. Given that frightening worst-case scenario, the majority, by the autumn of 1940, believed it important to ensure the defeat of the Axis even at the risk of war.... Nonetheless, 80 percent of Americans opposed any declaration of war against the Axis states. Not until after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Germany and Italy declared war on the United States on December 11 did America turn to full-scale war against the Axis. --Wayne S. Cole, Roosevelt and the Isolationists, 1932-1945
no problem you misread it, my written english isn't verry good, i'm sorry. i'm not to fond of the fact Countrys have weapons where they can destroy the world with, if i had it my way, nobody ever invented nuclear bombs, but every scientific breaktrough has his negative effects. that is what i meant with the fact i do not want the great countrys to have those weapons. i understand there is no way we can get rid of al nuclear weapons, we do not live in utopia. so therefor we should try to minimize the mass desruction weapons. atleast IMHO about Bush, i am just stating what alot of people in europe think,And i think Bush isn't showing otherwise about Saddam, i think there should be a revolution from within Iraq. try to show the people in Iraq how it can be. in a ful scale war there wil die to much poeple in my opinion.we can help Iraq then, atleast the people.i fear a war wil only upset the people who do not dislike the USA now.That is what i think., we can't force a change of government. it must come from the people of that country. IMHO
the ability of saddam that can destroy the world=none the ability of bush that can destroy the world=yes so the possiblity of saddam destroy the world=0% the possiblilty of bush destroy the world from1%-100% who should i be afraid more the o chance or the 1-100% chance?! why peoples start to feel this way now is becuz this bush will go to war even majority of the world n united nation is againist it so how can anyone gurrantee he wouldnt invade another country in the future for other reasons even majority of the world againist it...!! i am not defending saddam here n i believe saddam is ruthless man but u got to think about this why the world doesnt even trust bush to invade such a evil man???!!! there must be something wrong ,right?!
Fatfat, if Saddam gets a nuclear weapon, then the chances of him destroying the world are much higher than those of Bush. Saddam is a dictator who tries to do whatever the hell he wants and that includes mass murder because he feels like it. And when you say the world doesn't trust Bush, is France and Germany speaking for the whole world? Saying Bush is dangerous because the US military has nuclear weapons= lame argument. Nuclear war is the last thing the US wants. Arno, a revolution from inside Iraq would indeed be the best solution. Either that or Saddam leaving, either of which would make Bush back off.
If Al-Queda was working with Iraq, then why have all the Al-Queda operations been involving simple explosives and airliners and nothing that would reflect them having any "alleged" weaponry that the US is claiming? I just think its curious that we ling Al-Queda with Iraq, then we state Iraq has these dangerous weapons. There was no use of any of these alleged weapons when we attacked Afghanistan either. I do believe Saddam is a tyrranical dictator, but he is by far the exception, and there are many others throughout the world that make Saddam look like a saint. Take a stroll through Rwanda and most of Africa if you disagree. Is war the answer? I don't know. Are we going about the process of deciding if war is needed?? I don't believe so. If our main goal is to control the Iraqi oil fields, then of course France and Germany are pissed. They already have contracts there. US Conglomerates currently have contracts for oil exploration in Central asia in Kazakhastan and Azerbijan and i'm sure if German and France and the other European powers decided to invade those nations we would be upset because of the time and effort we placed into blossoming those relationships and the financial repurcussions. But is it fair what we are doing?? If oil is the key, and we want it for ourselves and to cut them out, why shouldn't they criticize us? Of course there could be other reasons I don't know about as well.
I understand how we have done a wonderful job of "demonizing" Saddam as a guy that just wants to detroy the world!! C'mon...Iraq under Saddam fought a US sanctioned war with Iran and then tried to take Kuwait in 1990 and was blown back to the stone age. NEVER once did Iraq under Saddam threaten or attack the USA. Yet now we talk about the inevitability of Saddam getting nukes and nuking the US. Great nationalistic call to war, but it seems there is no background for that assumption except for what the media has created. That country got blown back to the stone age in '91 as has had a crippling economic embargo since then. Are they supposed to love us now after we did that to them??????
FD Khan, I wasn't saying that Saddam really wants to destroy the world. I just got into this dumb argument about who would more likely destroy the world- Bush or Saddam? (Read fatcow's post above). But, Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons is bad enough even if he wouldn't attack the US. He would probably attack his neighbors, perform mass murder and pretty much be able to do what he wants without the US or other democracies being able to check him. And in my opinion, since he is in the Middle East, the threat of terrorist organizations getting a hold of one of his weapons, or "one vial" as Bush said, is very real.
If you're saying he would attack his neighbors and that is the threat then why is every Middle Eastern/Arab nation against the attack on Iraq?
I think it has to do with the political dynamcis, and the way countries in that area have a lot of anti- American sentiments. The governments are simply using that hatred for their own gain. They know the US will protect them from a Saddam invasion either way. Plus, if Saddam is removed and there is a democracy, that threatens the leadership of those countries. If Saddam is toppled the protestors inside Iran will have a lot more confidence, for example. I actually haven't heard much from Arab nations lately, however.
So you're actually saying that Saddam represents a real and immediate threat, backed by 'horrific weapons of mass destruction', and that his neighbours know this, but are willing to play politics about it because they know Saddam won't use them...except we should be worried because he will use them? Is everyone who's not American an idiot? Or just insane? WHat kind of leader would knowingly look the other way to an immediate, unstable threat with WMD who means him harm, merely because he doesn't like the cut of the US's jib!?!? Let alone an entire area of them!?!? Do you really think so little of non-US political leaders?
Yes, I really do think that little of non-democratic leaders. I think they know the threat isn't "immediate" but a few years away. And anyways, didn't they decide to cooperate with us?
US involvement in WWII and during the Cold War mostly had a beneficial effect on the world, there is no question about that. And I am sure there is some altruism and idealism involved to some degree. Western Europe, South Korea and Japan can rightfully be thankful for the benefits of US policy and involvement in defeating facism and keeping out Soviet communism. However, it is going much too far for me when ignorant, chavaunistic Americans claim all this was done primarily or solely due to idealism and altruism. WWII had been going on for several years in Asia and for at least two years in Europe and lots of atrocities were already occuring but only until the US itself was attacked and Germany joined Japan in declaring war against the US did the US act (well there's no choice at that point is there?). And US involvement and aid during the Cold War was because of competition for hegemony versus the USSR not primarily due to altruism (but I am not claiming there wasn't at least some degree of altruism involved.) And during that Cold War, the US did not exactly always support "idealism", "freedom" and "democracy" in the struggle against the USSR. The USA supported thugs like Nicaraguan Contras because they opposed the Soviet-backed Sandanista govt, supported thug regimes like Mobutu's Zaire in Africa, many rightist (but pro-US and anti-communist) regimes in South America, threatened democratic India and sided with Pakistan because India was pro-Soviet (not because India was trying to be Communist but as leverage against China), backed financially and militarily this now vilified Saddam Hussein in the war against Soviet backed Iran although Saddam was just as brutal and evil then as he is now and this list of examples is not exhaustive. Please note that I am not being critical or trying to demonize US policy decisions here. Its people fought bravely and died in WWII, Korea and Vietnam in the struggle against facism and Soviet communism. Nevertheless it is still a distortion of history to paint these efforts and sacrifices to beneficiaries such as West Germans and South Koreans that the US sacrificed lives of its servicemen solely and primarily for their benefit first because it was not.
