We've got court jester John down here
The Fool has a tradition of wisdom and truth -- in difficult circumstances - John does not!
[quote="maxsdadeo"]
No sane person WANTS war, but at times it is our only option.
Unless he is removed by his own people ( highly unlikely) or others in the region (slightly more possible), this is one of those times.[/quote]
Max - I beg to differ - this is not "one of those times". All other avenues have not been exhausted.
Like dlowan, I'm amazed about the turnaround in thinking of the Australian population. There was little opposition to sending troops to Afghanistan. There was an obvious injury. There was an identifiable enemy. There was an expectation of a result.
But I see Iran as a totally different kettle of fish. When did Bin Laden morph into Saddam Hussein - and become the subject of US warmongering? The UN Weapons Inspectors aren't finding anything - so your President is getting more gung-ho? Is this so that he can act before there proof of no mass weapons?
Most of our troops don't want to go, and most Australians don't want them to go. We want the US to pull back and look for a peaceful way!
Phoenix,
Please explain your comment about jihad. What, besides ethnicity, does jihad have to do with Iraq.
The longer we wait the stronger the terrorists cells are? Please explain what Iraq has to do with the holy war you speak of.
edit: tried to make post appear less confrontational
maxsdadeo wrote:And I apologize to all of the brave men and women in the Australian army who will be fighting to eliminate one of the most evil forces in the world, despite the apparent ingratitude of some of their fellow countrymen.
The service men and women of this country will recieve 100% support from the Australian public. We won't blame them for Howard being a gutless little puppet.
And we thought we lived in a Democracy - the government for the people, by the people, of the people.....
Ironical, isnt it ???
I'm under no such illusions.
Margo: I beg to differ, why isn't it?
Would you prefer to have the UN issue yet another resolution against Iraq, only to have it be ignored by Saddam?
And why must this be a precursor to our engaging in conflict with this nut ball?
How many chances does this guy get in your world?
Here is one American who is not ready or willing to abdicate our sovereignty to a world body who does everything but have America's best interests in mind.
Are you familiar with the American comedic group "The Three Stooges"?
Those in the UN are nothing but a bunch of Shemps...
Max,
What I am desperately trying to understand is for what reason does Bush want to go after Saddam ??
1. He has weapons of mass destructions
So does North Korea (even more openly), Syria, Pakistan, India...
2. He has not fulfilled UN resolutions
So has Pakistan, India, Israel.....
3. He has poor Human rights record
So do almost every country in Africa
So why only Saddam ???
The UN was formed to protect the sovereignty of the world, how far it has been successful - now that is a debatable topic, but that does not give US a right to attack another countries sovereignty for no apparent reason.
Just recently, there was a discussion on A2K where a man was arrested in a bar - as he could have potentially caused trouble/broken laws once he went outside the bar. I cannot help but draw parallel to the Iraq situation with this incident.
If someone can explain to me why US/UK sovereignty is more precious than anyone else's - I will be most greatful.
(Yeah - and why SHEMP, for pete's sake.....?)
Craven- Don't worry about being confrontational with me. My views are not etched in stone, and I am attempting to make sense of all of this.
What I DO know is that Saddam is a mass murderer, who thought nothing of destroying many of Iraq's citizens with chemical weapons. In the best of all worlds, the there would be an internal coup, and he would be toppled by his generals. But considering the way his vote went, the people of Iraq are scared shitless of him, so I doubt that it would happen.
Recently, I read a story (sorry, no link) that it is thought that Saddam has moved many of his WMDs to Iran. He certainly had enough time to do this.
What I am perceiving is a conflict that has been simmering since the 12th century, but has emerged as a dirty war in the last decade or so. There are many factors involved, much of which IS the fault of the US- that whole oil business. In all of the confrontations, it has been the Muslim countries who have attacked non-Muslim targets. It was so interesting that last year, when Bush used the word "Crusade" in one of his speeches, the Muslim world reacted so strongly to it.
What I believe that we have now is a very complicated situation, with many players, who have different agendas, both political and religious.
At this point I would hope that the US wised up, and worked on ways to use less oil- I don't think that it will happen soon, because of the Administration's close ties with the oil industry.
I do think though, that people who are hell bent on destroying Western civilization (yes, I do believe that) need to know that they can't blow up ships and topple skyscrapers without being accountable for it. We need to stop the money from flowing from the despots to the suicide bombers, and to the countries who will have SERIOUS WMD before long.
I apologize if my response may seem a bit scattered, and that is because of the complexity of the situation, and the myriad of factors involved.
In regard to Sadaam moving his WMDs to Iran (or Syria or .. or.. or..) that's just wild speculation. It makes precious little sense.
I still don't understand what the heck the suicide bombers, crusade, dirty war etc have to do with this topic. Other than Iraq's location in the mid east what on earth does the percieved jihad/crusade have to do with this?
You make mention of muslims attacking western countries and people hell bent o destroying western civilization and since Sadaam has not exhibited either of these traits nor affiliation with those who do I wonder what you are talking about.
It's incredible how vastly different the casus belli people manage to come up with is.
If you ask some we are going to war to liberate the people, others say it's to preclude proliferation and yet others talk of crusades and jihads.
The administration has touched on all of them but they settled for one, the WMDs. Domestically all those issues are raised to maintain support but the only case that has been made (weakly) is that the war is needed to disarm Iraq.
If you are making a case for war is needed and "we can't wait" due to a grander holy war you envision please make this case. I haven't seen anyone take that angle seriously and I believe it's for good reason.
Margo<
I thought your post to be "right-on."
Already during this pre-war frenzy by Dubya, we have lost the backing of France and Germany, two of our staunchest allies. Which country will be next?
I really liked your question: "When did Bin Laden morph into Saddam Hussein?"
"When," indeed.
The current UN has a strong anti-American bias. I do not think that the U.S. administration (any) should rely upon this organization while making crucial decisions.
When have France and Germany been allies, willhenry - staunch or otherwise?
France? A staunch ally? bwa-to-the-ha-ha-ha.
