Sup everyone. So tell me whats on everyone's minds about the war a iraq.
My opinion stands that war is a well thought out strategy planed only at the last second only when diplomacy has failed.
P.S. saddams an idiot.

The only problem, is that, before war, the diplomacy could continue to give results...
This is not Saddam who is an idiot (him, it's a criminal)

Although I traditionally refrain from giving my political opinion in discussion pages that are not conducive to the topic at hand (this is an artistic site and not a political site), I feel the need to express praise for Pres. Bush for standing for what he feels is right even though the world would undoubtedly mock him for his decisions. If twelve years of diplomacy under three administrations have failed, further diplomacy would not advance the situation in a positive direction. I have several Iraqi friends, and all of them praise the actions of the United States. In terms of American protestors, one should not hide behind a flag unless they are willing to defend the freedom it represents.

I tend to agree with CrazyIvan here... as for ppigeons remark: Diplomacy was actually working in the early days when the US was escalating their miltary around Iraq putting the pressure on Saddam, it was only when all these anti-war protesters started complaining that he became defiant. After that, there was no diplomacy, no inspections, war became inevitable... It is not Bush's fault either... he's just cleaning up the mess that past presidents have created. I don't think anyone likes being in the positiion we are in now, but someone has to do it. The stuff they are doing there in Iraq is screaming to heaven for vengeance, all the atrocities, the torturing, raping, mutilating, etc.... And the U.S. has decided that we will take the responsibility of liberating them ourselves, because the international community could not function on this issue...

Hi, I am from Chile (yeah that long country in south america). From here it sort of look's like Bush's war, It's like he has his own personal reasons to be fighting this (his fathers failure to finish this). On the other hand, he's been quite intelligent in the use of force, targeting mostly strategic objectives and caring for what happens after the war with the Iraqi people. It's a real shame that UN was totally uncompetent with dealing with the subject. It could have spared the world a war. Now that the Turks are coming from the north things are starting to get complicated and that's not america's only problem. Let's just all pray for this to have a favorable outcome for the world, and may it bring long term peace to the sector. Iraqi people deserve being freed from the tyrannic dicatorship of Saddam, and become a free nation.

In light of calling it Pres. Bush Sr.'s "failure to finish," if I remember correctly, it was the UN that stopped Sr. the first time. . . they only authorized the U.S. to disarm Iraq and not to change the Regime

CrazyIvan: where did you see 12 years of diplomacy? Me, I saw 12 years of ridiculous embargo.
Bush and his counselors wanted this war only for geostrategic reasons: Saoudi Arabia is not more reliable, therefore it is necessary to assure a provision in oil by Iraq. That's all.
What I reproach, its to have put it under the pretext of anti - terrorism. Saddam doesn't have anything in common with Bin Laden...

Saddam may or may not have anything to do with Bin Laden, but he has connections with other terrorist groups. But that is not the only reason we are attacking Saddam, it is becuase of his manufactoring of weapons of mass destruction, which he has said himself he will use, even against his own people.

I agree: the U.S. does need oil . . . it's how we function... but we still maintain one of the lowest gasoline prices in the world without Iraq's oil. We only want Iraq's oil if the money from the purchases goes to the people of Iraq and not a dictator regime that will use the money to fund terrorists and the production of weapons of mass destruction. That is why we placed the embargo. The U.S. does not have direct diplomatic relations with Iraq namely because we don't have an embassy in Iraq. Our diplomacy must work through the UN, and for 12 years (since desert storm), we have tried to work through the UN to peacefully remove the regime from power or limit his ability to produce such weapons.

Wow! We seem to be having a suprisingly mature discussion about the war. =)

WinterNight: I agree that Saddam is a criminal, that he used forbidden weapons against his own people...
But for Bush its false pretexts, or then, He must also attack Iran, Libya, Sudan, north Korea... The bloodthirsty and terrorist dictators are numerous.
These bad pretexts provoked a major crisis in UN, the tearing of NATO and of the European Union and the distrust with Turkey,...
What damages!
In the future it will result a bigger hate for the Western and for Americans in particular.

Hey, Caedes, there is not only the photo in life!

Excellent point ppigeon... but I don't think the world would have viewed Bush any more kindly if he had decided to simultaneously attack all those vile countries you mentioned. Plus I do not believe that those are the only pretexts either... I do not know what intelligence my government has over there, but I believe that Iraq may have been more of a threat than we could have imagined. I must admit though... North Korea scares me... they require a totally different approach than Saddam, because they have a maniac as a leader and most of the people it seems really do support him. More importantly however he already has Nuclear Capabilities, we are just stopping Saddam before he gets them and gives them to his Terrorist buddies like Bin Laden. So here I am... bracing for the next 9/11 which I believe will inevitably happen soon... =[

For months I've been telling anyone who asks me that there is no right answer, that, in effect, Bush and the other US leaders have to choose who will hate us. If Saddam isn't ousted, there's an enormous threat of a much larger war, potentially something on the scale of a World War. On the other hand, by attacking a MIddle Eastern Nation, fundamentalists and terrorists have an even greater reason, and excuse, to hate the US. Had he backed down, then the extremists could say that America is weak, and ripe for more attacks. So all Bush was given was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which he apparently feels he is solving in the best way.
It does seem that there are ulterior motives, as brought up earlier in this discussion, and I'll say that I haven't ignored them. It does look like this administration is trying to finish the work of the previous Bush, and it does look like we're in it for the oil. However, if a leader is committing crimes against their own people, and humanity as a whole, someone has to put forth the effort to stop it.
I won't claim to be the most informed person, or maybe even very informed at all, as I don't have a TV in my dorm, and I'm currently more concerned with finding the divergence and curl of electromagenetic vector fields than watching CNN, in an effort to keep myself in school and off the front lines.

Maybe the United States was incorrect in attempting to secure freedom for an oppressed people. At any rate, it saddens me to see a nation that was once one of our best allies in such opposition to a noble cause. To consider how many Americans gave their lives half a century ago liberating their country from another dictator regime. . . . . .

I see a greather danger, though, in the conflict with North Korea, that was mentioned before. It's tougher to talk out of that situation, and an armed conflict would, certainly, bring disaster. Especially with these Koreans who have "honor" above lives.
An eye must be kept too on that.... too dangerous.

CrazyIvan: You must not think that Europeans became anti - Americans. The European countries knew war, invasion and bombardments so. It is normal that the pacific feeling is developed there more. USA delivered Europe of the Nazi dictatorship, but USA didn't have a war anymore inside their country since 1865... My father was a resistant that sabotaged railroad tracks to prevent the German reinforcement arrival against the American army. The present reproach is the bad diplomacy of american leaders.

CrazyIvan: The majority of European countries are certainly not anti-war, in fact the only major countries that oppose the war are France, Belgium, Germany, and Russia, although Germany are at least aiding somewhat to the cause. These countries constitute only about 15%(may not be entirly accurate) of the entire european countries, but the point is that most if not all eastern european countries have given full support and some have acctually sent troops in. Countries openly supporting and involved in the war understand the nessecity of the situation.

The only country in Europe I eluded to was France . . . It is no surprise that Russia does not support us (they haven't in over 50 years), Belgium's support would be helpful, but they do not hold the power of Veto in the UN b/c they are not one of the five permanent members on the security council. The same goes for Germany. Perhaps my statements were a little harsh on France. . .and for that I apologize(After all, our largest symbol of freedom was a gift from France). My opinion of France was challenged, however, when they prepared a rejection speech before the final proposal had been given by the US before the UN. In the eyes of many Americans, this was a "slap in the face" At any rate, I do not foresee diplomatic relations severed in any part of Europe.

LucasZee: Attention, in a lot of European countries, the opinion of the population is not the same that the opinion of leaders. In Spain, prime minister Aznar committed to the side of USA and the United Kingdom, but 90% of the population are against the war. Aznar declared that he would not represent himself anymore to elections...

ppigeon: Irregardless of the general population opinion, it will be the countries that are supporting the US (weather through the population or the government) that will be given levies on oil and petrol, particularily of course, for the UK and the US, with due consideration for other countries that participated. Furthermore you will find that much of public opinion is not thouroughly thought through, weather or not a country supports the war on iraq, is independent on the fact that that country is a terrorist target, also people opposed to the war should have some consideration for the fact that their not living in a nazi controlled country thanks mainly to the UK and US during world war 2.

Then again, I probably dont appreciate the fact that I basically on the other side of the world, and iraqi missiles cant go the distance to reach us. So I can understand why so many europeans are oppossed to the war. Apologies if my comments offended anyone.

While we are on the topiuc of other countries supporing the US, what do you Americans think of Canada rejecting to support the war?

The opinion of an European: Canada dares to take its own path.
This is not easy, with an as powerful neighbor!

the opinion of an American: good for canada! even when we try to frighten people with our power, im glad to see a nation who stands their ground no matter what! (unless of course we threatened them with a nuclear weapon, that might change their minds, j/k)

I agree with Bush whole heartidly. I am a young woman living in the USA, and I am very proud to be born here. My brother is serving his country over there with 2 close friends. I am very thankful that we have a leader now with enough guts to actually do something. We have tried talking, and giving deadlines, and extensions to those deadlines, it hasn't worked in the past; what makes people think it will work now. I was thinking today, reguardless if you are against Bush's act to go to war or agree with it, we are at war! It has been started and protestors with signs, celebretis or not, will not stop what is already happening. I agree with a non-violent approach to any matter, but there are just some things that cannot be settled with words or agreements. Especially if the other person doesn't want to listen. So, i think instead of protesting and mocking our president in our own country the US people should simply pray for a favorable outcome and that our troops come back safely.

And when the war will be finished, that will us make? Do you believe that the American army is going to maintain the peace in Iraq with 200.000 soldiers?
The middle-east became a powder-keg, a volcano, where the hate for Western increased. Peoples of Egypt, of Syria, of Jordan,... dont accept that their governments come to terms with USA.
The world is now a lot more fragile than before the war.

ppigeon: you make it sound as if standing for what is good should only be done if good is in the majority. America was brought out from under a oppressive government; maybe this fact instilled freedom too deeply in the hearts of her people. As for America only having 200,000 soldiers. . . The US does not intend to set up a permanent occupation of Iraq. People in the Middle East have always hated the US, and they always will. I think they fear the power we have in freedom and our alliance with Israel. In terms of our feelings toward them, we have withheld the majority of our military's ability for the sake of Iraqi civilians. I don't mean to sound boastful, but with our airforce's mobility, the US could have dropped the regime without one Coalition casualty.

CrazyIvan: You are speaking about Israel: the Arabian and Moslem peoples (and also a lot of Europeans) don't understand that USA impose the peace and the democracy in Iraq, before solving the Palestinian problem. The Israeli lobby in USA is always very powerful...

Well, they still havent found all the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that Bush insisted they had.....if you ask me...he just wanted to finish what his father started(like sr_eivel said)....not many people i know actually thought we needed military action....most of us think that N Korea is a bigger threat, they acctually have weapons of mass destruction(a nuke), where as we only suspected iraq of having hem, even after we sent inspectors there. In my opinoin, bush wont be re elected...hes spending $80,000,000,000 dollars killing people, when most school districs are millions of dollars in debt...there are better ways to spend all of our tax money.

N. Korea is a threat, thats true, but Saddam is a big threat also. Its not just suspecting that he has them, he does have them for a fact, he said himself that he had them. Also, it isn't just spending $80billion dollars just to kill people, it is also to take out a dictatorship that has slaughtered many people, to rebuild Iraq, and to bring essential needs to the people of Iraq.

His purpose in spending $80bil was not to kill people... to say that is being very simplistic.

I'm surprised by so much innocence... American soldiers are in Iraq because it's an oil region, strategic for USA. The setting up of a democracy is only a pretext, that was invented when it has been clear that there were not weapons of massive destruction...

I wouldn't be so sure as to say that we are there because it is an oil region... Back in the first Gulf War when we were in Kuwait we gave the Kuwaitis back their oil fields. If we were so desparate for oil we could have had it back then. So I doubt it is about oil here...

Additionally, in the President's last State of the Union address he proposed a budget of several billion dollars that would advance technologies in automobiles that would make us less reliant on oil. As well as opening our own oil reserves in Alaska...

I will be the first to admit that the whole motive change (i.e. Looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction to a government change) is working suprisingly well on our non-perceptive American public. =)

I wonder however, there was much evidence before the war that Saddam had the WMD. We have not found any so far... so I am guessing that perhaps Saddam knew he didn't stand a chance against the US so he did something with the WMD to make the US look foolish. I believe that was his best way of hitting the US hardest as well. I was very suspicious at how easily he let the US take over Bagdhad...

Oh well... Just some random thoughts....

1) Oil: Bush doesn't need to appropriate the oil fields. He only wants that these are exploited by governments that make allegiance to USA. To maintain a sure and regular provision of oil. Cars consume less, but there are always more...
2) WMD: Saddam certainly had some WMD. But since ' 91 and since inspections these weapons don't exist anymore or are not anymore in state to serve. The CIA knows certainly it.
3) Democracy: American soldiers are in Afghanistan since more than one year. Do you see a beginning of democracy in Afghanistan? Yet, the Talibans disappeared.

1) Of course Bush wants Iraq to export oil to American Allies, but it is Iraq's oil to do with as they please. It would be ridiculous to advocate sending the oil to our enemies to strengthen their governments. The same issue was brought up prior to WWII when we refused to ship more scrap metal to Japan.
2) Saddam himself claimed to having WMDs . . . what he did with them is what we're trying to find out now. As Beowulf pointed out, distributing them would be a wise move on the part of Saddam.
3) Democracy in Afghanistan was not an issue when we entered that country. . . We went in there to get bin Laden supporters at all costs. The Taliban would still have control of the country if they had not harbored bin Laden and refused to work with the US and the UN. We are still fighting in Afghanistan; Iraq has just pulled media attention away from the skirmishes in Afganistan.

Then, why do the American enter in Iraq to establish the democracy and why not in Afghanistan? This is not normal to invoke the democracy for one and not for the other...
Peoples of this region are not mature for the democracy. They live in a hierarchical society. They are always at the age of tribes...

It takes loger than a few years for a democratic government to emerge from such a situation as Afghanistan. "Rome wasn't built in a day." Having said than, here's a timeline of the governing of Afghanistan. Notice where elections are mentioned.

I hope you don't take offence at this, but I'd suggest doing at least a little research before making such easily refutable arguements.

We know that Hamid Karzai only governs the region of Kaboul. A big part of territory called ' tribal zone' is not ready for the democracy. Besides, Bin Laden probably hides there...
And american soldiers are not able to make anything there

So if the American's can't do anything there and it's "not ready for democracy", then what are you complaining about? Do you think the British thought the American colonies were "ready for Democracy" over 200 years ago. It took 12 years after the famous 1776 date before elections were held in accordance with our Constitution.

I think that our conversation skids. In fact I reacted on what told CrazyIvan " Democracy in Afghanistan was not an issue when we entered that country. . . We went in there to get bin Laden supporters at all costs ".
I think that introducing the democracy in Iraq is a new pretext, because the old (to destroy the WMD) is not more believable.
I mean rightly that Americans don't dare to confess the true reason of the war.

I should make it clear that I am against the war and have been the whole time, but some of the anti-war "peace" protesters arguments are just downright ignorant that is why I have felt compeled to write as I have. I realize that this war is making us look like a bunch of arrogant ignorant bufoons (which I admit we are... =). I am also of aware of appearant "motive changes" in US leadership.

Beowulf, you are a wise man...
I will try to be also wise