Should the U.S. invade Iraq?

[Stu]

I suppose it's time to open a real non-shoe, non-fashion discussion by raising this question. I am somewhat torn by this whole issue. I find myself in the U.S. mainstream by feeling that it would be in the best interests of the U.S. and the world if we did invade Iraq, but I think it would be a big mistake if we did alone, without the support at least of our European allies. Bush perhaps may be exaggerating the danger that Saddam Hussein poses at the moment, but are we supposed to wait until he uses a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon, or gives them to a terrorist group that uses them? One big lesson from 9/11 is that we can't afford to sit and wait until a terrorist strikes, because by that time it may be too late. One "gift" that Osama bin Laden may have bestowed on his fellow Muslims by the 9/11 attack is legitimizing the argument that the U.S. has a right and duty to take pre-emptive strikes against terrorist groups and the nations that support terrorism and terrorize other nations themselves. On the other hand, the notion of large-scale casualties (both U.S. military and Iraqi civilian) are very disturbing, particularly if Bush cannot follow through and strengthen his case for attacking Iraq. Also disturbing is the likelihood that a U.S. invasion will only inspire more radical Muslim terrorists. Would we be any safer for having done that? On the other hand, we can't afford to not take out a potential aggressor because of a fear that it might anger some two-bit terrorist somewhere. So this argument becomes frustratingly circular..... Well, what do you all think?

[Gizmo]

It's like opening then Pandora's Box --- YOU DONT'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPEN NEXT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's hard to say what should WE do with this problem because of the position of arabic countries. If they support thats ok but if not then we can have global conflict with biological , chemical weapon and terrorists attacks everywhere !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Time will show what we have done !!!!!!!!!

[Firefox]

Certainly not without full UN support. Bush can't go flexing his muscles around the world because he doesn't like a regime. Iraq poses no threat to the US anyway. Even if he had a nuclear weapon which he doesn't, his delivery systems have but a few 100 mile range. And I doubt if even Sadam would use a nuclear weapon if he had one, as he knows the penalty would be complete annihilation of his country and the replacement of his regime. Sadam is not stupid, he is a master of theatre and brinksmanship. His invasion of Kuwait was a calculated risk which backfired, but the penalty for failure was not total destruction.

[Trolldeg]

provocation time: If the USA didn't have to play world police all the time there wouldn't be a terrorist threat against them.

[Firefox]

I agree with that. All the time America is playing world police and manipulating UN decisions. They won't particpate in pollution control. They want it all their own way. Then they get surprised when people don't like them for it, as though anyone could disagree with such a god worshipping righteous nation. Wake up to the real world, America, there's more than one country on this planet. I actually quite like the USA myself and they are our closest allies in England, but even friends can get too blinkered for their own good.

[j-turbo2002]

Wake up to the real world, America, there's more than one country on this planet.

Actually, America has known for a very long time that there are other countries on this planet. The people in "those other countries" left their homeland for a better life. And what did they do? They all setteled in a place called America and worked extremely to make it the greatest country in the world. Diversity is something that has always made this country great.

If the USA didn't have to play world police all the time there wouldn't be a terrorist threat against them.

I also agree with you Trolldeg.

As a proud US citizen I too am sick of the US being the world police all of the time. Most of the majority of US citizens (including myself) wish that the rest of the world (except the UK) would do a lot more.

They won't particpate in pollution control.

Yes, you are right, the US does not participate in pollution control. Really folks, if you think that the US is going to sign something as stupid as the KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE you are dreaming. The US would never sign something that would hurt this great nation. By, the way, if you all think that the US is a bunch of polluters - think again. If you want to see real pollution take a trip to Russia sometime!

They want it all their own way.

Where did you get this crazy idea from? Do you really belive this?

[Laurieheels]

Turbo, your patriotism is certainly running rampant. However, I must point out that many immigrants choose to stay in Canada as well. I've been to America, several times, several places, and honestly, I like where I live. People choose to move many places around the world. Moving to America means becoming an American, living an american dream. I can't see how this is so great, in a country where diversity is frowned upon outside of ethnic restaurants and people form their own militias because they do not trust their own government. America has some good things about it, sure, but no one country is the end all and be all of great living. Our world is a mess, and that which we can do is simply live our individual lives as best we can and treat others with dignity and respect. Ultimately, if America feels that Iraq is a threat, they'll go and showcase the military might by invading for humanitarian reasons. Troops need combat experience, and Americans seem to approve of kicking bottom on those considered evil and up to no good. It's quite convenient. Certainly a war is a different alternative to just working out differences that go back 1000 years and many wars, but who is to say that war is a better alternative? Understand the root of the problem, and the problem can be solved. I don't think anyone is looking to see how far back this issue can go. 1096 C.E. springs to mind.

[j-turbo2002]

Turbo, your patriotism is certainly running rampant. However, I must point out that many immigrants choose to stay in Canada as well.

Great! I think it is wonderful that people want to live in Canada. If they want to live in Canada so be it.

I've been to America, several times, several places, and honestly, I like where I live.

More power to you! Wanderful.

People choose to move many places around the world. Moving to America means becoming an American, living an american dream. I can't see how this is so great, in a country where diversity is frowned upon outside of ethnic restaurants and people form their own militias because they do not trust their own government.

This is too weird! I like you Laurie! You have just spoken like a true Canadian! Currently I have a large Serbian family that currently lives in Toronto and they too belive the same kind of nonsense. Yes, diversity is sometimes frowned upon outside of ethnic restaurants and sometimes people form their own militias because they do not trust their own government. These thypes of things go on in other countries as well! It is not just America! People do stange things out of fear. Fear of the other race and fear that their freedoms are at risk so they form militas. But these types of things are minimal. Not all of America is like this anymore. But according to Canadian television ( according to may Aunts and Uncles) you that these things are widespread in America but they are not.

Our world is a mess, and that which we can do is simply live our individual lives as best we can and treat others with dignity and respect.

I agree with you here!

[Firefox]

Firefox wrote:

They want it all their own way.

Where did you get this crazy idea from? Do you really belive this?

It's hardly a crazy idea. In their heart of hearts, nearly all countries and individuals start from the premise of their own self interest. I don't blame America for some of it's actions, but being in a position of power, that power has to be tempered with great caution. The moderation is the restraint that the UN offers to a greater or lesser extent. The USA trumpets it's belief in democracy. Let them follow their own advice and listen to world democracy when it come to international matters

[Trolldeg]

Actually, America has known for a very long time that there are other countries on this planet. The people in "those other countries" left their homeland for a better life.

This was some while ago.

And what did they do? They all setteled in a place called America and worked extremely to make it the greatest country in the world.

obviously they failed.

If the USA didn't have to play world police all the time there wouldn't be a terrorist threat against them.

I also agree with you Trolldeg.

As a proud US citizen I too am sick of the US being the world police all of the time. Most of the majority of US citizens (including myself) wish that the rest of the world (except the UK) would do a lot more.

we need coutries to act less like america, not more.

Yes, you are right, the US does not participate in pollution control. Really folks, if you think that the US is going to sign something as stupid as the KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE you are dreaming.

I guess we were hoping the US would come to its senses.

The US would never sign something that would hurt this great nation.

in what way is it hurting? by making our world a cleaner place?

GWB won't sign because he came to power through campaign money from american oil companys, and these now expect something in return.

By, the way, if you all think that the US is a bunch of polluters - think again. If you want to see real pollution take a trip to Russia sometime!

2 wrongs does not make a right.

[j-turbo2002]

This was some while ago.

No, this is wrong, it still continues to this present day. My neighbor got fed up with situation in Germany and so she just decided (recently) to move here to America to be with the rest of her family.

obviously they failed.

No. This is also wrong. I don't know if you know but Americans, like myself work very hard for a living. I it is our hard work (60+ hours a week) ethic and severe determination that makes this country what it is.

we need coutries to act less like america, not more.

No. This is also wrong. We need more countries like America. Not less.

I guess we were hoping the US would come to its senses.

What are you talking about? The US did come to its senses! It did not sign the treaty.

in what way is it hurting? by making our world a cleaner place?

GWB won't sign because he came to power through campaign money from american oil companys, and these now expect something in return.

Whoops. This is my fault. I meant to say that it would hurt this nation economically. I totally agree that we need cleaner air but the KYOTO PROTOCOL is not the solution to the problem. By the way, the KYOTO PROTOCOL was around during the Clinton era and he wouldn't sign that treaty also. So the part about oil companies expecting something in return from Bush is just plain nonsense. He did accept a lot of money from big oil (This was the only thing that you got right!).

2 wrongs does not make a right.

Actually it is just one wrong. Actually, the US has been the leaders in pollution control for quite some time now.

[Laurieheels]

Well, Turbo, if the news reports the negative aspects of America and that isn't all there is to it, maybe the news needs to report some positive aspects as well. Tragedy makes the news, of course. I think the need here then is to have international media report on the good things with regards to America, not just the bad. Then our perceptions may change and your argument will have that extra bit of proof to stop the controversy here I am sure we have had attempts at forming a militia group in modern day Canada, but I can't see the group standing up to the government past the start of hockey season, or for that matter, past the first fresh batch of morning donuts at the Tim Hortons.

[Firefox]

There are loads of positive aspects of America. Things that we can all learn from. Big progress on racial integration, tolerance, human rights. Rewarding hard work and contibution to society with social status, no matter who you are. Great centres of research, academic and technical excellence. Willingness to share technology for the greater good. Sure, there's usually $$$ involved but that's better than being so secretive like the Chinese for example. I'm sure there's lots more I've missed out, but non of that's in question. It does not give USA the right to act world police of their own accord. If they are so fed up of doing it, then why don't they desist now instead of the Bush gung-ho attitude "We're going in there to take him out, UN support or not".

[j-turbo2002]

Back on the topic of Iraq. I really don't think that the US will ever attack Iraq becouse the international support for doing something like that isn't there. I mean, if the US wanted to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam it would have done it a long time ago. I know that there were a lot of legal issues as to why the US did not do so the first time around....but still. And to be honest with you, if Bush really wanted to attak Iraq he would have done so already. What I see from the Bush Administration is a very careful and methodical approach to this whole debate. And if the US does go into Iraq, it won't be for quite some time.

[Dexter23]

I hope the US don't attack Iraq, I think the cost will be to high, how manny people have to die for Bush his ego.

[Dr. Shoe]

There is a country that has weapons of mass destruction. It consistantly refuses to allow UN weapon inspectors access to "sensitive" military installations, and will not allow any inspectors from "hostile" nations under any circumstances. This nation is ruled by a man with a below average IQ of 97 who is totally manipulated by a number of parties who put their own interests above those of the nation of a whole. Those who know me will know that I am talking about the US. Consider the facts. A president is elected under dubious circumstances and was only able to run because of the illustrious service of his father. He has a weak leadership that was fortunately (for him) overshadowed by 9-11-01. Now that the electorate is starting to question his leadership, he is brushing all efforts aside and rushing headlong into a war using "the war on terrorism" as an excuse. Moreover, it is my personal opinion that it is part of a personal vendetta to finish a job that Daddy wouldn't do. If he really wants to eradicate terrorism, he should support the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza. He should support the British in Northern Ireland (instead of allowing the continuing donations to Noraid which under US law are still TAX DEDUCTABLE!!). Furthermore, the money that funded the Sept 11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia and many of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is no convincing evidence that there is any link whatsoever between Iraq and Al-Qaida. It is probably true that the Iraqi govrnment fund the Palestinian suicide bombers but that is a political move against Israel rather than assistance to Al-Qaida or a direct threat against the US.

[Bob]

... And of course, let us not forget that the US trained Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and funded them too As for Iraq, like it or not it is a sovereign country, what right do we have to tell any nation what sort of leadership and government they can and can't have? Would us Brits like it if the US said "You can't have your undemocratic head of state and undemocratic second chamber"? and promptly decided to send their troops in to depose the Queen and House of Lords? I think not, though the scale of things is not quite as it is with Saddam Hussain, I think there are a great many issues of sovereign right to self determination here, including the right for a people to choose to live in a dictatorship

[Bob]

Osama Bin Laden did fight against the Russians, the Mujahadin did not become Al Qaeda, it fractured into the northern alliance and the Taliban, and the CIA were involved in training both Al Qaeda (and therefore by default Osama Bin Laden) and the Mujahadin The Saudis who joined Al Qaeda weren't in it just for a stamp in they're passports, they were involved for the fight proper, incidently, not one Afghan has ever been a member of Al Qaeda, and not one Afghan was directly involved on the attacks on 11 September (this doesn't mean none were indirectly involved, the Taliban by allowing Osama Bin Laden safe haven were clearly not upset by his actions) Oddly, the US government gave the Taliban regime some millions of dollars in aid some months before 11 September. This was a show of good-will which many will have approved of, and many would have disagreed of. The aim was I believe to secure reform in the regime and as a first step towards normalising relations As for training the Mujahadin and Al Qaeda, the aim there was very simple, to oust the Soviet forces from Afghanistan and restore democracy through aiding those native afghans in their own fight. I don't think anyone would consider this a bad thing to do, but, unfortunately we didn't fully support them after the soviets left, leaving an enormous power vacuum and resurgence of tribal tensions Also, the US failed to understand just how deeply they are mistrusted in many parts of the Muslim world, in the case of 11 Sep, that miscalculation was, unfortunately, fatal. Of course, most people would have thought such an action would never have been taken by even the most fanatical terrorist, indeed, when I suggested to some coleagues that Middle Eastern terror groups are that fanatical and would be prepared to fly aircraft into buildings (after all, suicide car bombers are all too frequent) I was laughed at. It is a sad reflection on the state of international relations that this prediction became all too real America has to realise that many parts of the world today, including Europe are getting tired of the apparent hegemony of american culture around the world, not to mention the perceived superiority of american democracy. Neither american, british or any other system of governance is right for all countries, the right of self determination has to be supported, even if we don't like the result, case in point, the Commonwealth didn't immediately dismiss Pakistan after the military coup, even though many within the commonwealth are opposed to the coup. As a result in working to maintain normal relations with Pakistan we were able to secure co-operation with opporations against the Taliban, even though a sizeable portion of the Pakistani population are from the very same tribal group as the Taliban (Pashtun)

[Firefox]

It's true, American culture has a lot to offer, and the Russians do like Macdonalds For the most part, I like Americans and their culture. I don't like Bush though. A leader of below average IQ who seems not to be getting very good advice either. He is going to cause the image of the USA a lot of damage. Many people I know are getting sick of his warlike stance and ultimately that rubs off as hostility towards the US which is not fair, but that's what's going to happen. That's what is happening.

[Dr. Shoe]

Well, this statement that you made is all wrong. You forgot to tell everyone that the Russians have inspected our nuclear arsenal about 20+ many times since the fall of the Soviet Union. They have been inside NORAD a lot. The US even took them on a tour of the various launch sites in the Dakotas. The US even let the head of the Russian nuclear defense program walk up to the US Peacekeaper and Minuteman missles (in the underground silos) and physically walk up to them and touch them. The US also destroys most of the worlds chemical weapons at the Johnston Island Atoll in the Pacific. The US has destroyed many chemical weapons for the Russians and there is a US company that is currently assisting the Russians in building a chemical weapons depot in Russia. The Russians have many times seen the site at the Johnston Island Atoll many times inside and out for design considerations. The UN goes there many times to see how the process is comming along. The UN also visits the other US chemical weapons facilities at Umatilla, Oregon an Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Under the current treatys, the UN is in residence at these places 6 months at a time. They mainly see if the US is diluting the various agents (mustard, etc.) correctly (adding the right amount of alcohol, etc.). I think that the last group from the UN that visisted the Atoll consisted if a man from France, a woman from Sweeden, and another gentleman from Spain, who I might add, were all very nice people. Whoooo.........finished!

I never mentioned the Russians. To have expelled them would have led to "tit-for-tat" expulsions of Americans inspecting SS20s on the Ukranian steppes. A delegation of Lybyans were expelled in May 1991 and the Chinese were also asked to reduce the size of their group because it was deemed "disproportionate".

It is true that Bush doesn't have a very high IQ? BUT RULED? What kind of stupidity is this? For your information the United States is a country that is of the people, for the people, and by the people. I know that being from Brittan and being ruled under a crown (constitutional monarchy), you sometimes get these things mixed up . But it is okay I forgive you as I have forgiven everyone . Buy the way, I really know that the monarchy in a constitutional monarchy really has no power at all :drinking: . They are just ceremonial figures. If the US really hated it's current president there would have been a special session of Congress called up to begin impeachment hearings and he would have been thrown out of office. But this hasn't happened and there is not the slightest talk of impeachment. Look what almost happened to Clinton! I'd mention Nixon but he offically resigned. That is the power of the US govenment system.

In hindsight I think the word "governed" would have been more appropriate. From a political point of view, the US president by definition is the head of state, and ultimately bears total responsibility for the success or failure of matters of government policy. In the UK (Great Britain) we are governed by a cabinet of ministers who individually take the responsibilities, the Prime Minister who is the queen's representative, is responsible for hiring and firing the cabinet. Some republics such as Eire (Ireland) have Presidents and Prime Ministers and have cabinets much along the lines of the UK with the president filling a ceremonial role.

Consider the facts. A president is elected under dubious circumstances and was only able to run because of the illustrious service of his father.

Dubious circumstances? What? The US Supreme Court had pretty much all the say in getting Bush elected. The US Supreme Court is as you all know is made up of a group of people. And they came to the decision that it was unconstitutional for State of Florida to do what?

That is my point. The Supreme court had to rule on the matter and sat several times until it came to the "proper" decision. In a truly democratic country, the result would have been a coalition like in Italy. I'm not saying that that would be a perfect solution but Italy has a surprisingly strong economy.

He has a weak leadership that was fortunately (for him) overshadowed by 9-11-01.

Actually the Bush Administrations poll levels and approval ratings were both very high leading up to 9-11. They were in the 92 percentile range and most Americans agreed with his leadership and the way they were running the country.

Just because 92% of people questioned said that they were happy and agreed with his leadership does not intrinsically mean that his leadership is particularly strong. I seem to remember a similar poll siad that John Major was the most popular PM since Winston Churchill !!!!

Now that the electorate is starting to question his leadership, he is brushing all efforts aside and rushing headlong into a war using "the war on terrorism" as an excuse.

Can't you see what is going on here? The Bush Administration is playing a game of chicken with the Iraqis. Who will be the first one to flinch? Why is this so hard to see? The US did it for years with the Soviets. Both sides built up its nuclear arsenal and threatened each other with talk of war. Was there ever a war? No!

The only reason that there was never a war with the Soviet Union was because they also had nuclear weapons and were an even match for The US. A war would have almost certainly resulted in Global Distruction. It seems to me that preventing a second rate country from obtaining the nuclear deterrent is the principle reason for an atack on Iraq. If so, why not attack India and Pakistan the latter could easily become an Islamic Fundamentalist state.

Moreover, it is my personal opinion that it is part of a personal vendetta to finish a job that Daddy wouldn't do.

Oh please! Give me a break! When Iraq invaded Kuwait who did most world leaders pick up the red phone and call? Why yours truly, the US. AND there were a lot of leagal issues set forth by the UN as to why the US did not get rid of Saddam the first time!

This is my point, we were forbidden from going after Stan, but now we have "the war on terrorism" we have an excuse to force our own political system and regime on people who may be happy with the one they have. Moreover, no-one "called" the US or UK in to liberate Kuwait, we took on the role all by ourselves asking for the UN mandate after the troops were dispatched.

There is no convincing evidence that there is any link whatsoever between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

[Didn't the British Prime Minister come out and say that there was convincing evidence? If you want evidence I doubt that they are going to realease the names of all of the top secret spies (both Brittish and US) who say that there is.

Since when did any intelligent Brit ever believe a single utterance spoken by Tony Bliar (deliberately misspelt)? Besides which, he was refering to the alleged stock piles of weapons of mass destruction and access to the materials necessary to construct a nuclear device.

I don't mean any disrespect to the US or any of its fine citizens but it is my personal opinion that GWB is being pushed by the weapons industry and the oil companies who are keen to grab Iraq's government controlled oilfields.

Viva capitalism!!!

[j-turbo2002]

It's true, American culture has a lot to offer, and the Russians do like Macdonalds For the most part, I like Americans and their culture. I don't like Bush though. A leader of below average IQ who seems not to be getting very good advice either.

Our image is already damaged. Remember, Clinton was President for 8 years!

A colleague of mine does a lot of business in England and the rest of the UK. One time I asked him what people in the UK thought of the Bush Administrations "War on Terrorism Polocy". And to my surprise he said that most of them agreed with the US polocy. Not everyone was getting sick of him. He is an Idiot though!

[Firefox]

It depends when your friend went to the UK. The war against terrorism in Afghanistan was generally well supported. However the mood has changed as the emphasis has shifted to Iraq, and the balance of opinion is against the US on this latest issue. It sounds like you are a Republican the way you slagged off Clinton, but Clinton was a much more popular figure in the UK, and certainly closer in his ideology to the mainstream of Brithish politics. Bush does not appeal to many people in the UK. A few right wing "hang 'em and flog 'em" types maybe, but no mainstream credibility.

[j-turbo2002]

the Chinese were also asked to reduce the size of their group because it was deemed "disproportionate".

Yea, Clinton already gave them most of our nuclear secrets. Why in the hell would we let more people in if they already knew most of our secrets?

From a political point of view, the US president by definition is the head of state, and ultimately bears total responsibility for the success or failure of matters of government policy.

This is a nice definition but Bush does not rule!

One more time just for understanding purposes:

"For your information the United States is a country that is of the people, for the people, and by the people. If the US really hated it's current president there would have been a special session of Congress called up to begin impeachment hearings and he would have been thrown out of office. But this hasn't happened and there is not the slightest talk of impeachment. Look what almost happened to Clinton! I'd mention Nixon but he offically resigned. That is the power of the US govenment system. "

The people put you there and the people can also remove you.

In the UK (Great Britain) we are governed by a cabinet of ministers who individually take the responsibilities, the Prime Minister who is the queen's representative, is responsible for hiring and firing the cabinet. Some republics such as Eire (Ireland) have Presidents and Prime Ministers and have cabinets much along the lines of the UK with the president filling a ceremonial role.

Yea, I already know this. And I should have said something about it.

That is my point. The Supreme court had to rule on the matter and sat several times until it came to the "proper" decision.

Yea, so what!

This is how mature and professional people settle their arguments.

Just because 92% of people questioned said that they were happy and agreed with his leadership does not intrinsically mean that his leadership is particularly strong.

True. Actaully, I was wrong it was only 92% for about 4 to 6 months. Last night I found out that before 9-11 his popularity was at about 65% to 70%. Basically the same percentile as present day.

The only reason that there was never a war with the Soviet Union was because they also had nuclear weapons and were an even match for The US.

Very ture but only for a short period of time. Regan and, "You know who from the UK" were resopsible for their downfall . But this is a whole other topic in itself and I don't want to get off the topic of Iraq.

utterance spoken by Tony Bliar (deliberately misspelt)?

Yes, I did deliberately misspell that ! Damn you are good ! And I thought that no one would pick up on that! I was wrong!

I don't mean any disrespect to the US or any of its fine citizens but it is my personal opinion that GWB is being pushed by the weapons industry and the oil companies who are keen to grab Iraq's government controlled oilfields.

Out of all the statemants that you have made so far this on takes the cake . I am constantly hearing bullshit like this from "the left" all of the time in this country (the US) that it makes me sick . But what angers me more is when liberals get upset when they can't answer the following question:

"Why didn't they (Bush Sr. and those "Big Bad Mean American Oil Companies" ) take those Iraqi oil feilds the first time?"

If I recall, the US could have taken them ( ) but we didn't. Why? They still belong to Iraq.

Moreover, no-one "called" the US or UK in to liberate Kuwait, we took on the role all by ourselves asking for the UN mandate after the troops were dispatched.

Let me rephrase that last statement that I made. Who (like always) was called upon by the UN to "Lead" the way.

[j-turbo2002]

It sounds like you are a Republican the way you slagged off Clinton, but Clinton was a much more popular figure in the UK, and certainly closer in his ideology to the mainstream of Brithish politics.

True, I am a Republican male who likes to wear high heels! Can you believe this ? Remember, Clinton was an (non "Leading") idiot too but at the same time he was also a very influential Genius ! Of course he was a much more popular figure in the UK. He went to school there and he knew how you people went about everday life. I mean, Clinton knew what to say to you people; when to say it; and how to say it . Remember the part about him being so influential? Of course the UK liked him! So did some other parts of the world. I liked him also, believe-it-or-not . I even voted for him ! Also remember that there also was a whole lot of American/ Clinton blaming and bashing back then that was coming from the rest of the world too-- including the UK.

But this is all getting way off of the real topic and we need to go back to the topic of Iraq........

[Stu]

With all the Bush bashing (not totally undeserved, I might add), it's interesting how little mention has been made of the fact that Tony Blair is supporting Bush on Iraq. So if Bush is a war mongerer, then Blair is his right-hand man, isn't he? Quite frankly, somebody has to be the world's policeman, and if it is not the U.S., then who should it be? Lord knows, our government is not perfect; I am embarrassed, for example, as to how hostile the Bush administration is to the notion of a clean and healthy environment. But, as far as Iraq goes, the fact is that the Hussein has made a mockery of the UN resolutions that ended the Persian Gulf war, and neither the UN nor its principal members have really had the guts to do anything about it. It may be nothing more than a political tactic, but I do give Bush credit for telling the UN it either has to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevent. A cop has to do what a cop has to do. After doing some more reading and thinking about this over the last few days, my feeling is that if Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, we have to take him out. Period. He promised the UN he wouldn't develop them, and anybody who has used poison gas against Kurds and Iranians has not earned the benefit of the doubt. However, the Bush Administration does owe the world some pretty convincing evidence that Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction. Until they show such evidence to the world, the US ought to hold off on attacking Iraq. Perhaps Bush has such evidence, but he is holding off on showing it until the political game with the weapons inspections is fully played out.

[Bob]

There is no doubt that something has to be done about Saddam Hussain, but as for how we do it, that is another matter entirely. Myself, I don't like the idea of Britain and America going in guns blazing and enforcing a regime change. I don't think it'd work and a lot of lives would be lost trying If there is going to be change in Iraq it'll have to come from the inside, by the Iraqi people themselves

[Bob]

incidently, not one Afghan has ever been a member of Al Qaeda,

Are you sure about this?

I'm about as sure as anyone can be about this, I think it is beyond doubt that the whole mess in Afghanistan is very tangled, to put it mildly

It is also true that my statement that the Mujahadin fractured into the Taliban & Northern Alliance was simplistic, it was much more complex than that and any argument about the why's and wherefores can quickly become bogged down (i was trying to expand the debate without making the statement too complex )

As for all those behind Al Qaeda, there were a lot of people, not just the Saudis (money and personnel?) and the CIA (money and training?). The whole thing is a tangled shadowy mess and lot of what we think we know is based on a lot of conjecture and supposition. I for one don't think we'll ever get to bottom of it

As for american tax dollars going to big boys and not the ordinary Afghanis, (or others around the world) that isn't unique to the US, it happens to british tax £'s too, guess we've all got a lot to learn out of this

[Bob]

America has to realise that many parts of the world today, including Europe are getting tired of the apparent hegemony of american culture around the world,

[1]Mmmmm, again, I'm sometimes guilty of over simplifying...

not to mention the perceived superiority of american democracy.

... again, I am talking about perception, not the reality of what actually exists, I don't believe any american actually believes his government, or system of governence, to be perfect. In fact, this forum proves this to be the case.

Neither american, british or any other system of governance is right for all countries, the right of self determination has to be supported, even if we don't like the result, case in point, the Commonwealth didn't immediately dismiss Pakistan after the military coup, even though many within the commonwealth are opposed to the coup. As a result in working to maintain normal relations with Pakistan we were able to secure co-operation with opporations against the Taliban, even though a sizeable portion of the Pakistani population are from the very same tribal group as the Taliban (Pashtun)

... this was intended to be the main thrust of the argument, to which I feel the preamble to was taken (albeit slightly) out of context. However, it was perhaps felt by some to be a little weak

I think that we are in danger of decending into semantics here, so I hope i've cleared up any misunderstanding I may have caused. I for one didn't want to upset any american sensibilities or descend into american bashing, I understand all too well how offensive bashing any nation can be especially as england has been on the recieving end of that itselft, especially during international football tournaments

[Renee]

I think we probably should, but I like the idea of lots of bombs and then send in small Special Opps groups instead of amassing a huige force. Although I am no army expert so I am not really qualified. I do not look forward to it either. Although if "they" beiing whomever want him out why not just hire some assasins. Renee

[Firefox]

Sadam has 20 or more special "doubles" running around the country pretending to be him. It's not as easy as you might imagine Renee.