Why couldn't we get U.N. approval or a broader coalition?

[DrewKaree]

And so begins another patented DrewKaree LinkFest 2004^TM.  Careful, biased reports WILL be mixed in!

I admit it, the war WAS about oil.  See here for details

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And we get to help pay for the investigation! What's the deal, it's about oil...investigation over!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank goodness Russia is committed to the U.N.'s goals and wouldn't work to subvert them

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey fredster, check this out....another country reporting on something I haven't heard in the U.S.!  If this keeps happening, I'll welcome them sticking their nose into our business, although I'm not so sure, as this story says, anyone cares much about anything OTHER than WMD's anymore.  If we can't find those, we should never have gone in there, no matter the reason....perhaps Bush spoke about the reasons, somewhere, hmm, mebbe those can be found and posted here by someone else

---------------------------------------------------------------------

so PERHAPS they'll want to offer their help in Iraq.  Would THESE guys helping constitute a "stronger coalition"?  Yeah, they're all over it.  "in a few years".  Maybe.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this a Patriot Act thing?  Or is it a "we want an autograph thing?  Sorry, just had to throw this in for a "National Enquirer" feel.  They DID put the words "homeland security" in the article

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh no, not ANOTHER "war for oil".  When will the "Oil Wars" stop, and why aren't the people speaking out against the government?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Those darn Scotsmen and their opinions on the U.S. and their involvement with the U.N.  I'm starting to like the Scotsmen, even if they have nothing to do with the country!  Hey, how ARE those sanctions working?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This guy has the gall to say "Al-Qaeda and its affiliates understand, even if some Democrats apparently do not, that America has not acted alone." Wait, I agree with him.  Nevermind.  


I'm just glad all these issues are being reported on so widely in the U.S. so we can see that the U.N. is THE group we should turn to when deciding what to do regarding American interests.  

[Mameotron]

Drew, I can't help myself.  I just have to post a quote from one of the articles you linked.



"War critics in America, who will never look at the Duelfer report, will cite it as proof that the war in Iraq was ill considered. Apparently, they don't care that Hussein misled the world.

 Or that he was gearing up to manufacture more lethal weapons.

 Or that he killed Shiite Iraqis with WMD under the watch of the United Nations.

 They only care about bashing Bush."


Ok, here's one more quote I can't resist.

"Osama bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995".

Couldn't say it better myself.  Now, on with the "biased reporting" attacks.

[Mugzilla]

Why would Annan, his son, France, or Germany join? They were making a boatload of money from the food-for-oil program. France and German KNEW that if we went into Iraq, the'd lose their free money, and get found out that they were supporting Saddam's wallet.

[patrickl]

They (France and Russia) weren't just making money on the arms for food deals, they owned substantial amounts of property there and Saddam owed them loads of money. Indeed they didn't like the idea that Bush would go in, bomb their property to hell and steal the oil for himself.

Why is it so surprising that Saddam tried to circumvent the sanctions? Who wouldn't? How would the US react if sanctions were imposed on them. In fact, how honest do companies in the US behave now? Of course one needs to prevent that kind of illegal actions, but it's hardly a surprise that people try to make money off of situations like that. I don't see what point it makes. Is it a reason to start a war or something?

So Iraqi officials met with Osama Bin Laden. That says ... wel basically nothing. Maybe Saddam sent him a strippogram for his birthday. On the other hand, Osama said Saddam offered him money and he turned the "infidel" down.

Saddam tried to hand out money to terrorists and they turned him down. If any of them accepted money then who's to say they didn't just rip Saddam off? He did have a shitload of explosive vests though. He must have bought them somewhere. I doubt they came from a reputable arms factory.

[DrewKaree]

France and Russia are violating sanctions of the U.N., of which they are a member.  

When it comes time to go to war, France and Russia make it their personal goal to get the U.N. to NOT approve actions against Sadaam.

France and Russia have the gall to act as if we are doing something wrong by going against what the U.N. has (or in this case, has not) decided to do about Sadaam.

This seems pretty easy to follow as to why it's important.

Do you wish to give France and Russia a pass on their actions and ignore their hypocrisy?

As for Bush stealing oil, back up your charge with facts, otherwise you're spewing lies for partisan reasons.

What's next for you?  Bush is killing people in Sudan?

[patrickl]

France and Russia are violating sanctions of the U.N., of which they are a member.  

I think it goes a bit far to state these nations are violating sanctions. They are however looking out for their own interests yes. They had invested lots of money when there were no sanctions on these investments. The proceeds of these oil for food scams are not even remotely interesting to nations states. Of course there will be individuals making money off these deals, but you are not gonna find a link to a nation state as such.

The problem the whole world apart from the US and Tony Blair (the rest of the UK seems dead set against this war too) have with this war is that it was forced. Bush wanted a war and he simply started it. Even though he could not think of a believable reason for it. That's just annoying and it makes people suspicious of his motives.

Iraq was never a threat to the US and never would be. Saddam had "intentions", but even the proof obtained on the programs he had speak of useless weapons. The guy was a dumb farmer with delusions of grandeur. The only damage Iraq was doing was to the wallets of the big american oil wasters by increasing oil prices. Now take a look at the oil prices ...

If you blame France and Russia for supporting Iraq, remember who supported Iraq in the late 80s? Did you know Rumsfeld met with Saddam? I'm not saying that makes him a terrorist, but it does show the US was involved in the buildup of Saddams empire. Rumsfeld was there trying to sell deals while Saddam was gassing the kurds and the UN was passing judgements on that. Apparently he didn't give a rats ass about Saddam using WMD at the time. Rumsfeld was just jealous that other countries started stealing the good deals when Saddam told the US to bugger off after they tried to screw him on some pipeline deals (or something).

Even worse, how do you think the CIA (also called UNSCOM in 1998) "knew" how many WMD Saddam had at his disposal? Well, US companies delivered most of the equipment and chemicals used in the production of these weapons. The US even went so far as to have the parts incriminating to US companies removed from the Iraqi report presented to the UN (or at least to the lesser important members)

And on another note, how do you think the US knew where the "terrorist bases" were in Afghanistan? The CIA helped build these camps. In fact the US led camps trained Osama Bin Laden and his partners in crime so he could be a terrorist against the ruski's. Unfortunately the whole deal backfired and now you're stuck with the mess. When you play with fire you get burned. Would you trust the people who put Osama in place to be honest in their reports on the issue?

If you look back in history you'll see a path of destruction and intrigue brought on by the government of the USA. Apparently that's the way they do business and they don't ever seem to learn from their past mistakes. I would appreciate it if they finally came out and said "ok we ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up, but we will leave other countries alone from now". But noooo they just blame someone else, come up with some lame propaganda story containing essential items like "freedom", "god bless us", "must defend our interests" and the dumb masses swallow it whole like it's the holy truth coming from the bible itself.

There is never one side to a story. Your government has made so many mistakes and violated/stopped so many UN resolutions it staggers belief that they even dare calling upon those resolutions in their own defense.

[DrewKaree]

Thank goodness.  For a moment there, I thought you were going to say the U.S. was bad because our flag was too pretty too  

So why didn't we "steal" all the oil before, remember, back when we went there the first time, or when Rumsfeld was busy getting a second job buying off Sadaam, or...what else has the U.S. done?  It's hard keeping up with just exactly what we have and haven't done, and how it does or doesn't tie in with why we should or shouldn't give all our money to everyone else and put on sackcloth and gnash our teeth.

It's a bit of the gaudy jackass American in me, I'll have to admit.  Here I was thinking we did good things (or is it part of our penance for being so bad that we always seem to be the first one hit up for money or troops or whatever resources we can give to better someone else), and come to find out, we've been crapping in everyone's well ever since time began  

Fine, they didn't "violate" sanctions.  What about the charge of Sadaam using the oil for food program to fund his weapons programs.  What about the charge that France and Russia were profiting on OIL, not "investments", through the oil for food program?  What about the possibility that they had those "investments" because they were screwing people on that OIL they were getting through that program?  What about that they knew if the oil for food program was stopped, they'd lose money, not on INVESTMENTS, but OIL, OIL MAN, OIL!  

You throw accusations of theft by Bush...OIL....I see you totally dismissing the OIL part of the Oil for Food program and how it was abused by both sides, brushing that off because of their "investments" in the area.  Since we went to war for the oil, where's your indignant outrage of the oil issue with France or Russia?

How about the charge that France and Russia had a direct hand in helping to shape the opinion of the rest of the world, and they did so BECAUSE OF THE OIL.

You want to make a baseless accusation towards Bush about stealing oil.  France and Russia didn't have to STEAL the oil, they were being given oil by Sadaam.  

You try to paint Sadaam as some backwoods hick too dumb to scratch his own arse.  That's ridiculous. I'm sure the people who lived there have a different opinion of him than you, and it's prolly more accurate. I'd bet dollars to donuts they find him a lot smarter than you want to give him credit for.

You don't have to appreciate the act right now, and you don't have to give credit for removing Sadaam, but life is better in Iraq because he is no longer in power.  For whatever reason we went in, the Iraqi people have the chance to become more than was ever possible under Sadaam's rule.  And contrary to what you've been told and believed, we didn't just go into Iraq to find WMD's, Bush laid out why we would go to war.  Find the case he laid out for why we would go to war with Iraq, as it seems the "monorail" issue has become WMD's.  We WERE looking for WMD's, but of all the reasons given, that wasn't the overriding reason.  

[patrickl]

The point is not so much if Iraq is better off without Saddam or not, but more if a better prepared war would have had a better result. I'd say, this whole war could have been much better executed had it been better prepared (especially for the period after the main war itself).

I'm not saying the actions of France or Russia are OK, I'm just getting a bit tired of the one sided views people (you in this case) try to pass of as ... yeah as what really?

What worries me is that you don't even know what damage your government is (and has been) doing. The terrorists are "created" by these actions. People don't just get up in the morning and think "Hey lets kill myself in an attempt to hurt some americans".

[DrewKaree]

You'll have to keep worrying about me, as I'm under no pretense that we "created" these terrorists.

They hate us for everything that makes our country great.  It also happens to violently disagree with their views, of which, are formed by the religious views and their interpretation of their religious doctrines.

I realize that the people who wish to do harm to us by flying planes into our buildings, work on chemical weapons to use against us, or strap bombs to themselve to use against us will decide to target us because their "god" told them to.  

I agree with you when you say "People don't just get up in the morning and think "Hey lets kill myself in an attempt to hurt some americans".  That's right, they don't.  It's a religious delusion they're under...they get up MANY mornings thinking that, and work towards hurting as many Americans as possible...that's why they wait, just one more day, until some morning, the plan falls into line.  It's why the second day that the World Trade Center was attacked was so much more effective.  They woke up every morning knowing they would kill themselves in an attempt to hurt some Americans.  They just had to plan the best way to hurt as many as they could.  They view themselves as doing "god's work", and they're committed to the ultimate sacrifice to destroy the "sinners".  



We didn't "create" these deluded people.  If America is wiped off the face of the earth, they'll move on to the next group of "sinners" their god tells them to destroy.

[DrewKaree]

The point is not so much if Iraq is better off without Saddam or not, but more if a better prepared war would have had a better result. I'd say, this whole war could have been much better executed had it been better prepared (especially for the period after the main war itself).

I get the feeling, by your words, that it doesn't matter if we had "better prepared" this war.  The result would have been the same - pissing off the people because we squatted in the wrong place in their village.   As far as I can see, there ISN'T a winning situation in your scenario, other than to never go to war in the first place.  Perhaps you can explain differently to me, or let me know I've hit the nail on the head.

Even if wars STOPPED happening, everyone all over the world will be pissed off by someone for some reason.  This isn't a uniquely "look what America did to us" thing, and America HAS helped the world in areas where others were too weak to stand up for themselves, or help in areas where others were only looking for self-serving objectives.  If that pisses people off, so be it.  There's simply NO POSSIBLE WAY that some country won't be pissed off at another for some trifling reason.  


You aren't saying the actions of France or Russia are OK, but you CERTAINLY are defending their actions as some sort of "they had investments, so it was ok" deal.  

My one sided view is a stand, of sorts, for what I believe to be right.  You have given many views, vaguely worded solutions (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in calling them solutions, although Bush DID follow your "solutions") and the only stand I can seem to draw from your words is that America is screwing themselves even worse by doing something, and we've hosed the rest of the world so much that it makes France/Russia's actions a drop in the bucket, so we should focus on the U.S. and fix US first, and worry about what went on with them second - all that being said, Iraq is better off, but we went and did it wrong.  

Thanks for the backhanded "compliment", I think.

Again, I find myself wondering if you truly DO believe Iraq is better off, or if waiting another couple of years would have been the right way to deal with Sadaam.  

What I worry about is the fact you are completely unwilling to acknowledge the fact that we weren't the only ones who offered such knowledge about Sadaam.

I worry because you are completely willing to assign blame to the U.S.  It doesn't even seem to phase you that Russia gave the same information, made calls to Bush about a possible attack by Sadaam, Britain gave the same info.....ad nauseum.  It's not a rationale, it's called enough people are telling us the same thing....it's time to ACT!

If you looked outside and saw the sky, how many people would have to tell you it was blue before you'd agree that it was, indeed, blue?  

[patrickl]

Well I tried, but I'll give up now. Either you are unable or just unwilling to understand my posts.

I just hope you at least will learn to think for yourself about things instead of just lapping up the propaganda. Try also to think why things happen as opposed to how much military it will take to "solve" the problem.

[Dexter]

The UN exists for a reason, for the good of ALL humanity. Going into Iraq under a UN mandate as a united force would have still led to the ousting of Saddam but things would be a lot better now from an 'insurgency' point of view as the Iraqi people would know their only reason for invasion would be for the greater good. Of course, the reasons NOW given for the war i.e. the removal of evil Saddam, would never cause the UN to invade as it is a soverign country. If Blix had been let complete his job we would have found out the reasons for going to war was false, bush was never going to allow that to happen thus the rush to war. The US are seen as the invading force, slaughtering innocent women and children and stealing the countrys natural resource.  Only the UN can win the peace now.

Dexter

[Dartful Dodger]

The US are seen as the invading force, slaughtering innocent women and children and stealing the countrys natural resource.

I think you're confused with Kerry's Vietnam.

[Grasshopper]

It's deeply hypocritical of Bush and his supporters to criticise the UN for being ineffectual.

The UN is undeniably a deeply flawed organisation. But this isn't an accident. The powerful countries that set up the UN after the war (including the USA) deliberately set up the organisation in such a way as to ensure its power was limited, and most of the time this suits the USA very nicely.

The main problem is the veto system which is a recipe for inaction. It's ridiculous that one country can throw a spanner in the works.

Indeed the USA has used its veto on numerous occasions in the past. In fact it has often found itself in a minority of one. However, when France and a number of other countries threatened to use their vetos (as they were perfectly entitled to do) Bush cried foul and simply chose to ignore the UN altogether. This is a blatant example of double standards.

The UN (flawed as it is) is the closest thing we have to international democracy. Without the UN we simply have the law of the jungle. It would be more constructive if America used its economic and political leverage to push for much needed reform of the UN instead of undermining it.

[DrewKaree]

Well I tried, but I'll give up now. Either you are unable or just unwilling to understand my posts.

I just hope you at least will learn to think for yourself about things instead of just lapping up the propaganda. Try also to think why things happen as opposed to how much military it will take to "solve" the problem.

As long as we're speaking propoganda, I also hope the same thing for you.  This "America bad, everyone else good" attitude is fine for you, but to act as if that isn't some propoganda foisted on people overlooks the good that the U.S. does worldwide for the sake of political views.

The UN exists for a reason, for the good of ALL humanity.

So the dictators who are members somehow are humaintarians?  Oh, and it may "exist" for the good of all humanity, but its choices as to which part of "humanity" it chooses to help is just a bit suspect, what with the fraud within the programs to "help humanity"

Going into Iraq under a UN mandate as a united force would have still led to the ousting of Saddam

Kind of like the first time we did it, right?  I mean, the U.N. DID finish the job and get him out after that mandate.

but things would be a lot better now from an 'insurgency' point of view as the Iraqi people would know their only reason for invasion would be for the greater good.

They do know it, however, for political reasons there's nothing to be gained by showing it on television.  Find some Iraqi's....they appreciate what's being done far more than you are willing to admit

Of course, the reasons NOW given for the war i.e. the removal of evil Saddam, would never cause the UN to invade as it is a soverign country.

it was a reason given at the start, along with multiple other reasons.  Unbeknownst to you, WMD's weren't the main reason, nor the ONLY reason, for going into Iraq, but you already knew that with your super-sleuth detective work.

The US are seen as the invading force, slaughtering innocent women and children and stealing the countrys natural resource.

I know what with all the partisan reporting we have over here I get shown what they want me to see, but they have been killing terrorists.  Simply stating we are "slaughtering innocent women and children" is disingenuous.  It is an attempt to paint the U.S. Military as indiscriminate killers, but you forgot a few of the colors in your paint-by-numbers scenario.  You're giving a response meant to elicit emotional outrage - "women and children" - while erasing or omitting the fact that the terrorists, while most likely men, COULD in fact be women or children.

You're hiding behind "opinion" yet again when you state that the U.S. is "stealing the countrys natural resource."  Are you hoping if you bang that gong loudly enough, you'll be listened to?  I'm guessing you're referring to Oil, but please clear up exactly what you mean by "natural resource".  And when clearing that up, it'd be nice to see some facts to back up your accusation, although I think you can't, so couched your charge in the vague "natural resource".  

Remember...accusation....facts to back it up.

[patrickl]

Well I tried, but I'll give up now. Either you are unable or just unwilling to understand my posts.

I just hope you at least will learn to think for yourself about things instead of just lapping up the propaganda. Try also to think why things happen as opposed to how much military it will take to "solve" the problem.

As long as we're speaking propoganda, I also hope the same thing for you.  This "America bad, everyone else good" attitude is fine for you, but to act as if that isn't some propoganda foisted on people overlooks the good that the U.S. does worldwide for the sake of political views.

I'm not the one talking about good or bad. I'm only showing that the US is more to blame for it's own problems than anyone else where you seem intent on blaming just about anyone but your own government.

[DrewKaree]

However, when France and a number of other countries threatened to use their vetos (as they were perfectly entitled to do) Bush cried foul and simply chose to ignore the UN altogether. This is a blatant example of double standards.

You've missed the most obvious example of the double standard.  

It was cried about endlessly when the war first started that this was a war for oil.  You may not remember it, as WMD's are the buzzword latched onto when "war for oil" was roundly ignored.

We didn't "steal the oil" in the first Gulf War, didn't steal it in THIS war, and the people using their vote (France, are you there?) claim some high moral ground while being involved in shady back-door dealings for what?  Say it with me kiddies.  OIL

Talk about a double standard    Funny, I don't hear the same outcry over France's dealings and the corruption involved within a few U.N. programs.  

Is it now going to be the U.S. who is at fault for the U.N. corruption too?

The UN (flawed as it is) is the closest thing we have to international democracy. Without the UN we simply have the law of the jungle. It would be more constructive if America used its economic and political leverage to push for much needed reform of the UN instead of undermining it.

ECONOMIC LEVERAGE?!?!?  GALLING!  The U.S. needs to throw MORE money at that institution to fix it?  Simply unbelievable.  Perhaps France, what with their self-righteous indignation, is better suited to fix the problems, including financially.

Political leverage....maybe you haven't been keeping up with the replies of the people who AGREE with your views, but in their mind, the U.S. has gone to war with no support from any other country so just WHO are we supposed to exert "political leverage" on?  

Talk amongst yourselves....come up with an answer.

[DrewKaree]

I'm not the one talking about good or bad.

I have to believe you've never CONSIDERED the good, as you WERE the one talking about the bad.  You make apologies for France and Russia's actions while blaming the U.S. for the problems we "brought upon ourselves"  You haven't talked about good.  All you've seen fit to talk about is the bad.

I'm only showing that the US is more to blame for it's own problems than anyone else where you seem intent on blaming just about anyone but your own government.

I'm only showing that the U.S. is more to "blame" for offering assistance to help solve the problems of other countries than others.  I'm not intent on blaming anyone else, I'm intent on making it clear that, as much as you have shown a willingness to blame the U.S. for everything from acting senselessly towards a hick doofus farmer turned dictator to chapped lips, that the U.S. makes decisions that positively affect other countries every year.

I'm intent on showing that the things wailed about endlessly if America had done them are no big deal if another country does it.  I'm intent on showing the hypocrisy there, and it also serves to show that folks are going to be unhappy with what America does simply because - IT'S AMERICA - doing it.  I see a blind eye towards the actions of other countries, while you offer justification for those countries.

I'm unwilling to throw the U.S. under the bus for that reason, and you seem perfectly willing to ignore any of those things for whatever reason.

I'm realistic with how the U.S. is percieved in the world.  I know the good my country does, and I know that when trouble comes a-calling and someone wants some help, it is generally given, and in amounts that would stagger the average American if they knew the amounts.  One might say (Cooter?) that it's an unequal participation in comparison to the rest of the world.  

If the world didn't have the U.S. to hate, it WOULD be another country, because at some point, someone isn't happy with their lot in life, and looks for someone to affix blame to.  I realize our freedoms and way of life are something other people wish they had in their own life, and don't see a way to obtain that.  Enough time goes by, and bitterness sets in that they CAN'T get there (in their mind, at least).  We soon end up being the evil Americans because we see no reason to shut our mouths when it comes to telling of the GOOD our country exemplifies.

I'm realistic enough to know we will never be given credit for the good we do, except by the people affected.  The Iraqi's seem to "GET IT", even if you don't.

[Mameotron]

If you look back in history you'll see a path of destruction and intrigue brought on by the government of the USA. Apparently that's the way they do business and they don't ever seem to learn from their past mistakes. I would appreciate it if they finally came out and said "ok we ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up, but we will leave other countries alone from now". But noooo they just blame someone else, come up with some lame propaganda story containing essential items like "freedom", "god bless us", "must defend our interests" and the dumb masses swallow it whole like it's the holy truth coming from the bible itself.

Yep, the US really screwed things up during world war 2.  We should have just minded our own business and left Europe to sort out its own problems.

Geez, Patrick, when you make blanket statements like that, how can you expect people to NOT see your obvious bias?

OK, we screwed up in Europe during WW2, so we'll leave other countries alone from now on.  We sure learned our lesson!

[DrewKaree]

People don't just get up in the morning and think "Hey lets kill myself in an attempt to hurt some americans".

whaddaya know, you're RIGHT!  They DON'T just get up in the morning....they're trained, taught this in school, THEN they get up one morning and give it the ol' college try.

Perhaps we should form a coalition with France, Russia, Germany, and China to stop this.  We'll need Kerry to do this but I'm sure if he becomes President, they'll print up new textbooks the next day....with our funding, of course

I especially like this part, "I will even willingly fall as a Shahid [Martyr for Allah]."  So I guess this just discounts my whole "they're religious nutjobs" theory

Oh, check this out!  Lest Kofi get a pass as "impartial" while relatively few in the world focus on France's involvement in the Oil for Food program....mebbe his kid possibly being involved had something to do with his unwillingness to work with the U.S. this go-round.

Here ya go, one more link to click.  Why isn't there a cry for the U.N. to involve itself in Iraq's elections to the extent that they're being begged to stick their nose in the U.S. elections?

Ya know, Putin is just about the only guy I respect, as he seems to call 'em like he sees 'em.  Why does HE think this election is important?

[shmokes]

I think you're confused with Kerry's Vietnam.

SLAM!!!

You SO just got OWNED Dexter.

Hoooooooweeeeeee!!!  How could you even respond to that?

Kerry doesn't stand a chance with you around, Dartful.


p.s.  Dexter....don't give.  Fire back with a, "I know you are but what am I," and you'll be a contender again.  

[Dexter]

I think you're confused with Kerry's Vietnam.

SLAM!!!

You SO just got OWNED Dexter.

Hoooooooweeeeeee!!!  How could you even respond to that?

Kerry doesn't stand a chance with you around, Dartful.


p.s.  Dexter....don't give.  Fire back with a, "I know you are but what am I," and you'll be a contender again.  

Yep, seems the only way to debate on this forum is with cheap shots LOL. I keep forgetting the other Vietnam, the one Kerry raped and pillaged while the thief-in-chief carried childern from burning villages. Can you say 'swiftboat veteran'?

Anyhoo, Dartful, it WAS oil I was referring to, as in the only ministry and part of the infrastructure protected by the invaders while the others were levelled. Coincidence?

And while we're talking facts, the reasons given for attacking Iraq were never regieme change, until now of course, because there would never have been a 'coalition' if regieme change in a soverign nation was the reason for going to war. It would have been political suicide for any country besides the US.

Fact

[Grasshopper]

However, when France and a number of other countries threatened to use their vetos (as they were perfectly entitled to do) Bush cried foul and simply chose to ignore the UN altogether. This is a blatant example of double standards.

You've missed the most obvious example of the double standard.  

It was cried about endlessly when the war first started that this was a war for oil.  You may not remember it, as WMD's are the buzzword latched onto when "war for oil" was roundly ignored.

We didn't "steal the oil" in the first Gulf War, didn't steal it in THIS war, and the people using their vote (France, are you there?) claim some high moral ground while being involved in shady back-door dealings for what?  Say it with me kiddies.  OIL

Talk about a double standard    Funny, I don't hear the same outcry over France's dealings and the corruption involved within a few U.N. programs.  

Is it now going to be the U.S. who is at fault for the U.N. corruption too?

The UN (flawed as it is) is the closest thing we have to international democracy. Without the UN we simply have the law of the jungle. It would be more constructive if America used its economic and political leverage to push for much needed reform of the UN instead of undermining it.

ECONOMIC LEVERAGE?!?!?  GALLING!  The U.S. needs to throw MORE money at that institution to fix it?  Simply unbelievable.  Perhaps France, what with their self-righteous indignation, is better suited to fix the problems, including financially.

Political leverage....maybe you haven't been keeping up with the replies of the people who AGREE with your views, but in their mind, the U.S. has gone to war with no support from any other country so just WHO are we supposed to exert "political leverage" on?  

Talk amongst yourselves....come up with an answer.

Ahh, I see you're using your usual sleigh of hand and going off on a tangent when you are unable to deal with an issue head on. The oil for food programme has nothing to do with the point I was making. But that you already know.

My point is that if Bush really has such contempt for the UN and considers it beyond reform, he should withdraw America from the organisation immediately and have nothing further to do with it. This is not a course of action I would support but at least it would be consistent and honourable.

Instead Bush tries to have his cake and eat it. When his attempt to bully and cajole the security council members into supporting his pro-war resolution failed, he decided to ignore the will of the UN and go to war anyway. If he didn't regard the UN's decision as binding then why did he attempt to get the resolution in the first place? Either the UN matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

I can understand the position of people who thought, on balance, going to war was the right thing to do. But what I can't understand is people who support the way that Bush and Blair went to war.

But going back to the point of this thread - If you give the UN the finger before going to war, you can't expact the UN to sort out the mess caused by the aftermath of the war.

[Dartful Dodger]

But going back to the point of this thread - If you give the UN the finger before going to war, you can't expact the UN to sort out the mess caused by the aftermath of the war.

I agree, the US should just give the UN the finger and carry on, fighting the good fight.

[DrewKaree]

My point is that if Bush really has such contempt for the UN and considers it beyond reform, he should withdraw America from the organisation immediately and have nothing further to do with it. This is not a course of action I would support but at least it would be consistent and honourable.

I agree that we should withdraw from it.  Honor has nothing to do with it, I'd withdraw because it's getting more and more corrupt and doesn't mean squat when member nations work to circumvent the very sanctions enacted in order to reach their goal that no one seems to be decrying now...mebbe cuz it's not the evil Americans stealing the oil

Instead Bush tries to have his cake and eat it. When his attempt to bully and cajole the security council members into supporting his pro-war resolution failed, he decided to ignore the will of the UN and go to war anyway. If he didn't regard the UN's decision as binding then why did he attempt to get the resolution in the first place? Either the UN matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

It doesn't matter.  Yet Bush followed the wishes of the elected representatives and went to the U.N.  He followed the plan Kerry says he "would have done better".  No member nation has supported Kerry's position, but they sure as heck have wanted to make sure they are on record saying they wouldn't take his help, no matter what.

Bush, however, has a backbone, and when the U.N.'s larger corrupted members saw fit to work against our goals because it would interfere with their scam, Bush decided waiting for four more years, and so on, and so on, just wasn't going to work.  Bully for him, says I.

But going back to the point of this thread - If you give the UN the finger before going to war, you can't expact the UN to sort out the mess caused by the aftermath of the war.

And when the U.N. and its corrupt member nations decide to give the U.S. the finger by circumventing the sanctions they helped put in place all for oil, there should be a public outcry the likes we've never seen, and the U.S. should work to move in its interests since Sadaam could have had a nuke strapped to his back, riding a ballistic missile into the town square with large drums of mustard and sarin gas and France, Russia, China, and Mr Annan would NEVER have voted for a war that would have stopped their little scam.

[patrickl]

when the U.N.'s larger corrupted members saw fit to work against our goals because it would interfere with their scam

Drew, for real man, there was no scam. I guess you picked up on one little item in the propaganda deluge and it stuck. However it's such a minor point that it cannot be the whole foundation of your argument. At least not if you don't want to look like an "uninformed yank".

[shmokes]

when the U.N.'s larger corrupted members saw fit to work against our goals because it would interfere with their scam

Gimme a break.  America pulled the U.N. Resolution for military action in Iraq off the table after it became clear that we could not get A MAJORITY VOTE in the Security Council.  It wasn't just one or two meddlesome permanent-veto-power countries frustrating our plans.  Had it actually gone to vote and come out with a majority vote, perhaps France or Russia would have vetoed it, and then your claim might hold a little water.

But none of these countries had the need or even the opportunity to veto the resolution to go to war in Iraq because the Bush administration could not get a plurality of support and did not want to have the cloud of official U.N. disapproval of military action against Iraq hanging over their inevitable war.  So the issue was never voted on.  

[fredster]

Shmokes,

Was there a UN resolution for Clinton's invasion of Samola or Bosnia? NO.

These resolutions are a pile of paper. The issue didn't make it to the UN for vote because it was clear that a war declaration wasn't going to pass.  Bush knew that.

But he had two things to argue in a court of law he had the right.  1) he had violations of the treaty with the US Saddam technically violated.  2) He had a prior resolution (where the inspectors just came back in) from the UN he used as a banner to go to war.

Bush wasn't going to lose face in the international community by going to war when France and Germany were going to say no.  Germany was in the middle of a national election and France of course had interest in seeing Saddam in power.

Bush had the backing of the People of the US and all the lawful resolutions passed overwhelmingly in the congress.  The UK was with us and we had alarming reasons to believe there was an growing threat from Saddam.  If we hadn't found out he either got rid of most of his weapons to Syria, or he was bluffing, Kerry would be on a pulpit somewhere screaming that we should have removed Saddam when we had the chance.  The rest of the world would be backing that madman today and by now he would be building WMD and it wouldn't be long before no one would be able to take him out without killing entire armies.

PatrickL, as for the UN scam, dude you have no clue. Google "oil for food scandal" and read a little. If you don't believe what's written there, then back up your words with facts from news or your own personal investigation.  The Yanks will save the world, and your leftist socialist country along with it.  Smoke another one and then maybe you can figure that out.

[Dexter]

Small point - The recently completed report on WMDs in Iraq stated that any intention to obtain WMDs by Saddam was as a deterrent against Iran and they would have been of the short range variety. FACT. The allegations of an intent to strike the US have been proven to be fabrications. FACT. Most of the plantet knew this and wanted to give Blix the chance to prove it, which has now been proven by other parties anyway. A needless false war, waged under false pretences by a false President. 1100+ US troops dead, 8000+ injured, 30000+ Iraqis dead. The greatest recruitment tool for terrorists the world has known. Amazing how anything this administration touches turns to sh1t. Maybe thats why they lost the vote in the first place, the majority of the American publc knew the democrats could do a better job and voted for gore.

Hmm, I wonder what current ally of the US will be miracuously transformed into tomorrows madman/terrorist/enemy of freedom been hunted down for God and America. Rummy shaking hands with Saddam while he's using WMDs against the Iranians, the CIA training Osama to fight the Russians. Americas bedfellows turned evil because 'they hate us for our freedom'. Warning to all current allies of the US -  as soon as you have outlived your usefulness watch your back.

It's amazing how something so unfunny can be laughable at the same time.

Dexter

[patrickl]

PatrickL, as for the UN scam, dude you have no clue. Google "oil for food scandal" and read a little. If you don't believe what's written there, then back up your words with facts from news or your own personal investigation.  The Yanks will save the world, and your leftist socialist country along with it.  Smoke another one and then maybe you can figure that out.

I read about this "scandal" as Drew keeps pointing out on all these threads. He is just making too much out of this. The only thing I see in it that the US was jealous of the money French and Russian criminals were making and so they went to war, but I doubt that's the point he's trying to make.

If the Iraqis would have been more fond of the US they would have smuggled oil to US criminals too. Just like they bought most of their chemical weapons suplies from the US before.

[patrickl]

Hmm, I wonder what current ally of the US will be miracuously transformed into tomorrows madman/terrorist/enemy of freedom been hunted down for God and America. Rummy shaking hands with Saddam while he's using WMDs against the Iranians, the CIA training Osama to fight the Russians. Americas bedfellows turned evil because 'they hate us for our freedom'. Warning to all current allies of the US -  as soon as you have outlived your usefulness watch your back.

Could be the netherlands. We are a drug and child porn haven (sex at 16 years old is legal here) and we tolerate more illegal (i.e. terrorist) organizations here than any other country in europe.

Apparently the US actually has plans to forcefully liberate US war criminals if they might one day be convicted at the Hague international court.

[Dexter]

If the Iraqis would have been more fond of the US they would have smuggled oil to US criminals too. Just like they bought most of their chemical weapons suplies from the US before.

Good point Patrickl. A little discussed dimension to this slaughter in Iraq is the Euro currency factor. The Euro has become a viable alternative to trading in dollars and middle eastern countries have been doing this with gusto to relieve dependence on the dollar, hence the strength of the Euro. Whoever controls the oil in Iraq gets to choose what currency to deal in, thats a big slice of american pie that naturally the puppet government in Iraq will buy with their blood money.

Dexter

[fredster]

I can tell both of you just don't get it.  I can also tell you can't understand what was actually going on.  For some reason you believe the US needs the oil.  

FACT: The euro is 1.25 to 1 on the US dollar.  The dollar remains the trading standard, sorry.
FACT: America is second only to Saudi Arabia in the amount of oil pumped. That's why even in this time of higher energy prices we pay 2.00 US to 4.00 US in Holland.
FACT: The US is jealous of no one.  We are the world leader. We are the trade center of the free world. IF we fall, everybody's economy falls.
FACT: No Small Point, the main point - The UN has solved no conflicts and CAN be bribed at it's highest levels.
FACT: In no conflict of this size has so few civilians been killed. So Few lives lost , so quickly a force has overthrown another country.  In other wars we have lost 60,000 people or more.
FACT: The Hague is as useless as the UN.  How long has Malsoavic been on trial now? 6 years? Come on Boys.  We take care of our own.
FACT: Hans Blix said in late 2002 that the report circulate likely understated the ability to create weapons by Saddam.  
FACT: No one disputed that Saddam had WMD on the international level. Nor would they now if we had went in.  We found these weapons are either gone, (very likely), or still buried, or never existed.  But none the less, if the President had held back he would have missed the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past and remove this madman from power.

The US is fighting for the freedom of ourselves and free society all over the world.   We are the model for most democracies in the world.

We cannot be held back because of past mistakes in foreign policy. Iran was a bigger threat to the US at the time than Iraq.  Saddam hadn't been in power long enough to do all the evil we found he did.  

Dexter, what's the alternative?  Wait and see? Wait and see what the terrorists will do next and form some kind of international police force to round them up? Wait until they take over one of our schools and kill our children? What?

[Dexter]

FACT: The euro is 1.25 to 1 on the US dollar.  The dollar remains the trading standard, sorry.

Dear oh dear. WRONG, 1 Euro = 1.26 Dollars but this is irrelevent anyway. What is relevant is the relative performance of both currencies since the creation of the Euro. The euro is THE alternative as its growth has shown.


FACT: The US is jealous of no one.  We are the world leader. We are the trade center of the free world. IF we fall, everybody's economy falls.

If the US sank into the sea tomorrow, the world would manage, just like the US coped post 9/11, lets not sugar coat this. One of the main reasons for the Euro is to create a transparent 'united states of europe' trading/commerce zone.

FACT: In no conflict of this size has so few civilians been killed. So Few lives lost , so quickly a force has overthrown another country.  In other wars we have lost 60,000 people or more.

Whats to say you won't hit 60,000 dead including civilians, which I hope you're including in your figures as their lives are every bit as valuable. The conflict is far from over dispite Georgies little 'mission accomplished' photo op nearly a year and a half ago. Of course, its easy to pat your forces on the back for their low civillian death rates, not so easy if the dead civilians include your loved ones.

FACT: The Hague is as useless as the UN.  How long has Malsoavic been on trial now? 6 years? Come on Boys.  We take care of our own.

He is, however, on trial nonetheless, out of circulation and being tried by a legitimate court recognised by the civilised world. Will Saddams kangaroo court be viewed with the same authenticity??

FACT: Hans Blix said in late 2002 that the report circulate likely understated the ability to create weapons by Saddam.  
 
That is why he wanted ample time to complete his work, to give an accurate assessment without the risk of understatement. But why let him do that when he may have given an answer that would have prevented a war that Bush and his cronies were determined to wage.


FACT: No one disputed that Saddam had WMD on the international level. Nor would they now if we had went in.  We found these weapons are either gone, (very likely), or still buried, or never existed.  But none the less, if the President had held back he would have missed the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past and remove this madman from power.

Lets conveniently forget as we always do the WMDs given by the US and UK. The UN respected the rule of international law and acknowledged that there was a correct way of doing things, but they wouldn't do as despite there being 'consequences' (Powells words), always great to see a bully being stood up to! Oh, and I'm sorry but 'correcting mistakes' was never one of the reasons given for war. There would have been no coalition if it was, as it now is, the only reason. As I stated previously, todays madman is often yesterdays bedfellow for the US.

The US is fighting for the freedom of ourselves and free society all over the world.  We are the model for most democracies in the world.

Yes, because there are terrorist madmen plotting to take over MY country and destroy MY freedom. Don't think so, my people are liked, respected and welcomed all over the world, we are a neutral nation and famous for our friendliness and good humour. We also don't drop clusterbombs on civilian populations which helps. And if you're such a model for democracy then why isn't President Gore in the Whitehouse? In my country every vote counts, no matter who you vote for or your race. America can't say the same.You're fighting for the mandate of the neoconservatives and the war machine cash cow, nothing more. So, kill innocents if it suits the agenda, BUT PLEASE DON'T DO IT IN MY NAME FOR MY FREEDOM because it's clearly not.

Dexter, what's the alternative?  Wait and see? Wait and see what the terrorists will do next and form some kind of international police force to round them up? Wait until they take over one of our schools and kill our children? What?

Do you can think you can imprison and slaughter innocents without creating hatred? Hatred=Terrorist wannabes. Do you think you can kill a terrorist without creating a martyr and more terrorists? You cannot win the war on terror with force because you are fighting an idea based on vengeance, not a country,and cannot kill an idea with force of arms. The beginning of the end of the war on terror starts with America acknowledging its part in creating the hatred, making amends and showing those who would create the terror that it is no longer the enemy. Our schools, our children? No, my country has not committed atrocities against muslims, or have we troops in Iraq. So why would the terrorists strike here. Its a chicken and egg thing.

By the way, I am in no way anti-american, and long for the day when it is again seen as the custodian of liberty and justice.

Dexter

[fredster]

Dexter,

I understand now.  No, this is EARTH, not mars.

No, 1 dollar is 1.25 euros, not the other way around.  It's called the "exchange rate" look it up, google it, whatever.

If the US sank, the world economy would go into chaos. It did after 9/11. It would sink further. The world may manage, and the USA also, but not nearly where they were.

I do agree with "kangaroo court" and "Hague" in the same sentence.  Saddam is pretty lucky he's alive this long.  If Bush had his way they would have dug him out of that building at the beginining of the war and saved us all the trouble.

Hans Blix wanted ample time to draw more of a paycheck and get a few more camera angles.

The citizens of the US haven't been welcome for a long time overseas.  Our money is.  Always has been.  But there are several issues the US fights for that the europeans don't like.  I don't care really.  If we are doing what we believe is the right thing, then who cares what bolivia thinks? Really, it's a non issue what France and Germany think.  They didn't put any internal sanctions on us, did they?  If they are so opposed to us ideologically, then they can boycott our products and refuse to ship things to us. They didn't do that, did they?

Dexter, if you believe we created this then you truly are from mars.  There are lots of ways to react to the US, but whatever we did doesn't justify this reaction.  You cannot put these terrorists on any kind of moral plane with the US.

Besides, you didn't answer the question.  That's because you have no answer. It's easy to Criticize isn't it? You don't have to have an answer.  Kerry doesn't have an answer, he just complains.  I wouldn't have done this, I wouldn't have done that.  He says he'd have a broader coalition.

Well, in the first gulf war we had a Broader coalition, we had a reason with national security in mind, and we had a UN resolution and he still didn't vote to go.  So he's as credible as you.  He has no answer.  It's all what if's and hopes.  

Bush had a plan and a vision.  He did it in MY name, maybe not yours, but he did it for US.

[Grasshopper]

No, 1 dollar is 1.25 euros, not the other way around.  It's called the "exchange rate" look it up, google it, whatever.

Actually, the exchange rate at any given moment in time is utterly meaningless. The creators of the euro could initially have made 1euro=$0.10 or 1euro=$10.00. It's completely arbitrary.

What really matters is how currencies move in relation to one another over time.

Hans Blix wanted ample time to draw more of a paycheck and get a few more camera angles.

I think that's an unwarranted slur on a man you have almost certainly never met. Whatever your views on the inspection process, There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Hans Blix isn't a man of integrity.

[Grasshopper]

Hmm, I wonder what current ally of the US will be miracuously transformed into tomorrows madman/terrorist/enemy of freedom been hunted down for God and America. Rummy shaking hands with Saddam while he's using WMDs against the Iranians, the CIA training Osama to fight the Russians. Americas bedfellows turned evil because 'they hate us for our freedom'. Warning to all current allies of the US -  as soon as you have outlived your usefulness watch your back.

Indeed. There are some curious members of the 'coalition of the willing'. Take for instance Pakistan, a country which is essentially a dictatorship, in possesion of nuclear weapons (in violation of international treaties), and with a dubious human rights record. I wonder whether Musharraf will be tomorrow's bogeyman.

They say history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.

[DrewKaree]

Is there ever a circumstance under which going to war is clear cut and not open to criticism?  I'm sure there is, but I don't get the same feeling from others.

Try to answer it without telling me "sure, if we know they have WMD's and a broad coalition".  

I'm looking for an instance under which a country would be right to act alone in its own self-interest against another country.

[patrickl]

I can tell both of you just don't get it.  I can also tell you can't understand what was actually going on.

I think we know perfectly well. But then we are not under the influence of the propaganda war. We can still think straight.

For some reason you believe the US needs the oil.  

Who's talking about oil? The US is only interested in money. But then, OIL=money

FACT: The euro is 1.25 to 1 on the US dollar.  The dollar remains the trading standard, sorry.

I don't understand what you are on about the exchange rate. It costs 1.25 dollars to buy 1 euro. Why is that a good thing for the dollar? The euro set out to be roughly the same value as the dollar. So far the euro has increased in value by 25%. The dolar is still the trading standard yes, but it is insanely quickly losing ground. You current president saw to that. His complete mismanagement of the US finances (the banks practically OWN the US) and the way everyone now hates your country and try to do as little business with them as possible (so people use the euro more and more) are seeing to that.

FACT: America is second only to Saudi Arabia in the amount of oil pumped. That's why even in this time of higher energy prices we pay 2.00 US to 4.00 US in Holland.

We actually pay the same amount for the gas over here, but then we pay taxes. Over here we have the idea that the polluter pays. So if people use more energy they have to help clean up their mess. In the US the polluter simply pollutes and the future generations (or the rest of the world) can deal with your filth. The US squanders half of the worlds resources used annually. If there is one thing you are big in then it's in asocial behavior.

FACT: The US is jealous of no one.  We are the world leader. We are the trade center of the free world. IF we fall, everybody's economy falls.

I think you are overestimating your countries worth. I'd say China is more important already (or will be shortly), but europe combined is another block, for that matter Asia is. If you look at one country, yes, there aren't that many big countries, but economically that's not so much an issue.

Besides, my point was not so much about jealousnes, but more about greed. The greedy friends of GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld want to make ever more money.

FACT: No Small Point, the main point - The UN has solved no conflicts and CAN be bribed at it's highest levels.

It has solved plenty conflicts. They just have no army of themselves. In fact I cannot think of a conflict that was solved that did not have the UN involved. The US started GWII without the UN, but now they come begging back for help.
US officials can be bribed at the highest levels (Dick Cheney took $21 million).

FACT: In no conflict of this size has so few civilians been killed. So Few lives lost , so quickly a force has overthrown another country.  In other wars we have lost 60,000 people or more.

And? We're talking about the 1000 american soldiers that could have been prevented from dying had Bush better prepared the war. He created a terrorist haven and his army (and ours) suffered the consequences. Of course the war went pretty smoothly, but that bit after that didn't go according to plan (if there indeed was a plan)

FACT: The Hague is as useless as the UN.  How long has Malsoavic been on trial now? 6 years? Come on Boys.  We take care of our own.

It takes a while to do a trial properly. With properly I don't mean like that OJ Simpson farce, but a real trial (with no jury, but only professionals).

FACT: Hans Blix said in late 2002 that the report circulate likely understated the ability to create weapons by Saddam.  

Yes so? What's important is that just before the war he stated that he didnt think WMD where in Iraq.

He was sent in by the US to go check several places and he found nothing. The US claimed they knew where the WMD were before they went to war, Hans Blix went to look and there was nothing there. Then the US claimed that Saddam must have quickly moved the stuff since it had to be there. Ehm yeah sure.

The whole world knew that WMD presence was highly unlikely. Only the US government managed to convince some people that there was a WMD threat. that's still at least 5 billion people who understood there was no WMD threat.

FACT: No one disputed that Saddam had WMD on the international level. Nor would they now if we had went in.  We found these weapons are either gone, (very likely), or still buried, or never existed.  But none the less, if the President had held back he would have missed the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past and remove this madman from power.

In fact every nation but the US stated that the WMD where not an issue. Especially after Hans Blix demonstrated there were none where the US said they would be. Did you ever see anything about the UN resolutions leading up to this war?

The US is fighting for the freedom of ourselves and free society all over the world.   We are the model for most democracies in the world.

The US is fighting for:
- the popularity of it's president
- the bankbook of it's vice president and the friends of the president
- the false sense of security it gives kicking someone in the nuts (even though he has nothing to do with the reason why you are scared, at least you DID something)

The last item is spun into "Saving freedom for the world", but in fact it's just as useful as kicking your neighbour in the nuts.

We cannot be held back because of past mistakes in foreign policy. Iran was a bigger threat to the US at the time than Iraq.  Saddam hadn't been in power long enough to do all the evil we found he did.  

Iran was indeed another instance where the US ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up. Does the pattern become a bit clearer perhaps?
US meddles -> trouble comes -> US is in bigger mess

Dexter, what's the alternative?  Wait and see? Wait and see what the terrorists will do next and form some kind of international police force to round them up? Wait until they take over one of our schools and kill our children? What?

Fredster indeed what planet do you live on. The only thing threatening your schoolchildren is the loose weapons you have lying around over you country. How many children die from that annually? It's actually more than in the Beslan siege.

[Dexter]

Dexter,

No, 1 dollar is 1.25 euros, not the other way around.  It's called the "exchange rate" look it up, google it, whatever.

Hate to dwell on a point:
FXConverter - 164 Currency Converter Results
Friday, October 22, 2004
1 US Dollar = 0.79258 Euro
1 Euro (EUR) = 1.26170 US Dollar (USD)

Median price = 0.79252 / 0.79258 (bid/ask)
Minimum price = 0.79020 / 0.79045
Maximum price = 0.79536 / 0.79554

I don't google for conversions, I use the real thing as I frequently need accurate conversions done. You should try the following -

www.xe.com/ucc
http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic

Its called the "correct exchange rate", look it up, don't google it, whenever  

Any way, as I said, what is relevant is the relative performance of both currencies since the creation of the Euro. The Euro has gone from strength to strength thanks to 4 years of Republican 'leadership'.

The citizens of the US haven't been welcome for a long time overseas.

Well, over here you are still welcome. There is a lot of understanding for the fact that the last election was stolen and that as a result Bushes policies are not the direction America was supposed to be taken in. This, however, will change if Bush wins this one fairly, as it will be seen as the American people endorsing the war in Iraq.

Really, it's a non issue what France and Germany think.

Ah yes, thats the attitude that has caused Iraqnam to become the biggest error of foreign policy in the history of your country. It won't be a non-issue if terrorists strike your country having organised in France and not been monitored properly, the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' being as apathethic towards you as you are towards them.

Dexter, if you believe we created this then you truly are from mars.  There are lots of ways to react to the US, but whatever we did doesn't justify this reaction.  You cannot put these terrorists on any kind of moral plane with the US.

Lest we forget the victims of 9/11: September 11, 2001 - Terrorists strike the twin towers, 3000 dead. September 11, 1973 - "Project FUBELT"--the codename for C.I.A. covert operations to promote the military coup by General Pinochet in Chile, 3000 chilean civilians dead and the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende removed with US blessing. Still the good guys? What was that about "We are the model for most democracies in the world" again??

US interference in other countries affairs is a big part of what has created the hatred in the muslim world. Bin laden stated three reasons for 9/11, hating your freedom was not one of them. Fully understanding all sides of the arguement will be the beginning of the victory in the war on terror. Isolating yourselves and levelling populated areas wil not.

Dexter