Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

He said he had WMD probably because of his dealings with Bush snr. America has WMD's, did Saddam go and waltz into America? His threats were called posturing, many countries do it to some level or another. Many other regimes in the world are oppressive, where was American intervention there? America brought the terrorists out, if u want to install a democracy there, u have to finish the job. No half measures!! Of course his killing wasn't OK but u guys waited forever to step in. What about the terrorist groups in Pakistan? Where is the war on terror there?

No kidding. From the Iraqis I met, during the Saddam times some were afraid to even meet together too often (other than at the mosque) for fear some official or other would be suspicious, and family members would start disappearing. Of COURSE there were no [official] militias before the war. That's like saying there were no Jewish gangs in downtown Berlin in 1939. Even mention the idea of it to the wrong person, and Fedayeen Saddam assassins are removing your family for "relocation" or "re-education"-both typically one-way trips.
Side note: Saddam apparently had a fascination with Star Wars (the movie) that or he was a fan of Sweden in the 1950's. All of the Fedayeen Saddam helmets were shaped exactly like the helmet used by "Darth Vader" in the movie "Star Wars".

Does this mean you are considering breaking out of your mindset, and coming over to my point of view? ;-)

I would like to see some proof of this. Almost positive there was a mass grave found not more than 3 miles from Saddam International (now BIAP) while I was there in 2003.

For crying out loud, man! We can't kill everybody!....(tongue firmly in cheek)
this isn't the 1980's. America isn't as big a power as it once was, militarily (say, in the Reagan years). There is much happening that is shocking to the conscience in many countries in the world. America can't intervene in all of them. Sometimes another country does, sometimes the country falls through the cracks until it is late in the game, perhaps too late.

Here I absolutely agree with you.

Don't be so sure it isn't. Pakistan is a mixed bag. They are our ally (interesting word, "ally") so operations inside Pakistan are typically either done by Pakistanis or if US or other foreign forces are involved, they are with full Pakistani cooperation, and need not be plastered all over the news. If things change, and there is overt stuff happening there-then I'm sure the cameras will roll in.
Interesting mess happening there at the moment. Looks suspicious WRT Musharraf (sp?) but on the other hand, I've an open mind that perhaps he *didn't* have it done. A country with an intelligence service as good as Pakistan's-would, if they wanted, do things in a much less suspicious manner. Not sure what will come with the X-rays, claims, etc. etc. however....the eyes of the world are on Islamabad, it would seem.

John P.

I was referring to WMD as a justification for going to war which was found to be untrue. The civilian deaths I am referring to is the at least half a million deaths caused by the coalition. Yes, I know you saw some gas masks at the local ice-cream factory but Hans Blix et al didnt find any WMD and said so before the war.
Yep, there will be a few more mass graves now !

Point being, the ends did not justify the means.

^^^




You really have to ask yourself, to what extent American corporate and geopolitical elements already have "intervened" in other countries. For example, how did Saddam come to power initially and who was working with him?

For that matter, how about others: how did Pol Pot come to power; what about Sudharto in Indonesia? Why is it that there is so often a clear connection between American activity in countries before they "suddenly" become destabalized and a "madman" takes over?

Pakistan? well it would seem some elements of pakistan don't want to see peace anytime soon in afghanistan. If afghanistan were to become a stabilized and autonomous country, that would likely mean succession of a good chunk of pakistan as the bordering areas is home to a people both ethnically and culturally much more closely connected with afghanis.

ride on daisy...i absolutly agree with you and if my arab friends don't take it personal the ...Arabs never even knew where England or America was located or had any intention to know...not even a drop of oil was discovered by them in their own country so the greed and capitalisem is the right answer...still thousand middel eastern don't know where portogal is and yet they controled the spice trade in those teritory 500 years ago...does that wring the bell for our friend?

U hit the nail on the head. America goes through gas like it's gonna run out tomorrow. Iran is rich in oil of course but, then again, they aren't Arabs according to an Iranian acquaintance of mine

Hell yeah! let's round em up puddem in a field and bomb the b*stards!

Why r u targetting b*stards? I thought it was the terrorists that u were concerned about! hehehe

It seems that it brought the terrorists in.Were there so many mujahedeens from all over the muslim world in Saddam's times?

There were plenty in Jakarta, Indonesia.

I mean were there in Iraq ao many mujahedeens?Or did USA invade Jakarta as well?

Aha, in Iraq, u said from all over the muslim world. There weren't as many mujihadeens simply because people were scared to speak out against Saddam.

While Americans gave them the freedom of speech?

Well, u know, that's the plan. Democracy is the name of the game, hehehe

Freedom of speech or freedom to explode themselves?



Show me an arab country with democracy except those with problems and anomaly.

Even democracies have problems and anomaly. Freedom is freedom amigo

Did you ask Iraqis if they prefer democracy?

No, did u? It's a tragic irony that democracy wasn't freely chosen. U usually impose communist or totalitarian regimes on people, not democracies. America prefers to think of it as bestowing or conferring democracy upon Iraq.

It is known,most arabs do not like democracy.You cannot impose something people are reluctant to accept.

lol

much of your mindset seems to be justification and support of an illegal war so probably not ;-)

U can impose sth that people are reluctant to accept, it's just more difficult. Look at communism in Poland. Stalin described it as like "trying to saddle a cow". America is not even imposing a classic democracy anyway. The Constitution of Iraq is brought 2 u by....

Maybe because they have never really had it.

They have had it in Lebanon and Palestine.

who has?
IMHO a true democracy would be a scary frikkin place to live in.Give reall power to the masses,fek that,these are the same drones that watch tv talent shows and dress in burrberry.......No,give me the Ilusion of democracy(a nice long leash) any day .


yeah right,man from hamas with gun,he say vote for me,man from fattah with bigger gun,he say vote for me.....democracy my bum.

It depends where, Swiss are fine. This is matter of civilization. People whom belong to the higher civilization may live under enlightened absolute monarchy or practice direct democracy and still prosper.

Democracy western style cannot work everywhere.The Russians tried it and it failed.
In some cases(Aliente,Contras) even USA helped to overthrow democracy.

As I understand it, Saddam came to power by some of the same ruthless tactics that he ended up using to run his country...e.g. there was a revolution of a sort, then he took over from and I believe, assassinated the person who won along with everyone who disagreed with him. His first dealings with the west were not until the Iran-Iraq war, when he saw the opportunity to snuggle up to the Americans (us) as Iran was higher on the list of threats at the moment than he was.


I'm not sure exactly the U.S. ties to Pol-Pot-while it's possible I'm not buying that *just* yet...still not sure what this has to do with the present administration or the current government. After all I'm not taking anyone to task on things done by Queen Victoria, either...
This is not a true statement. Show me any proof whatsoever that Saddam did not possess WMD's, did not violate UN sanctions multiple times even after being warned, show me any proof that he was NOT working on a WMD program-it simply does not exist. The only argument for the "WMD's are a lie!" from the forgetful crowd[after all, everyone was saying it, not just US] is that we (US) have not claimed to have found any. Yet.

Why belittle what you have not seen with your own eyes. If an "ice cream factory" is a group of launchers and large rockets, fueled for launch-then sure, it was an ice cream factory. Consider also that Hans Blix was only allowed to look in areas that Saddam approved him to look in, and Saddam's security forces often blocked inspectors or made them return later, as I understand. Some places were simply made off limits completely. I wish the police were that way here-I could have all SORTS of things, including your car-and they would never find it. I'm sure Hans Blix is a decent man, but his inspection teams were unarmed and always anticipated-and therefore went only where Saddam allowed him to.

Your Iranian acquaintance is right, Iranians are not Arabs. They do not typically speak Arabic, either, but usually Farsi.... they are white (usually). Many in the U.S. prefer simply to be referred to as "Persian". Depends, I guess, on their feelings about the current government of Iran. Iran's oil to my knowledge has nothing to do with America, we simply do not get any from there (or even Iraq, for that matter). Iran's oil goes to Russia from what I gather, or at least that's where the alliances and "deals" are.
Very interesting. It could still be alright however, there are plenty of countries in that situation who have not invaded each other for this reasoning..
Yes...

The provisional government was the only civilian authority placed by the U.S. on Iraq, because people still need to go about their day-to-day lives. Civilians do not stop everything just because others are killing each other. The provisional government is gone, I believe. The new government of Iraq is one they have come up with themselves, including its constitution. It is not a western style democracy, per se, more of a parliamentary republic-although it offers a lot more freedoms than were available under Saddam. They DID want a democracy, only they were *screwed* in their previous attempt by one of our previous administrations (Bush Sr) who let Saddam's helicopters mow them down.

Pretty sure Egypt is doing ok...?

I see...so you "just don't get it".... ;-) so far you've made no statements, and linked to no sources, which to me prove there is anything at all illegal about the war in question. You try to convict an entire nation of some guilt by asking people to draw conclusions which are assumptions at best.

I would agree with you IF:
... you convinced me the administration "made up" Saddam's violations of sanctions, his denial of areas to UN inspectors (regardless of whether Blix et al found anything in the "Saddam Approved" locations he was allowed at), that the rockets his forces shot at aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone were "Nerf" or make-believe rockets...that insinuating to neighboring countries that you have WMD's is somehow a "joke" but believing him is somehow a "lie" invented by the U.S... that "we haven't found anything" is the same thing as "there is/was nothing there".
If you cannot convince me of your position, at least give me verifiable proof that will at least get me to respect your opinion....right now, I've written you off as a simple America hater who will find any reason possible to lay blame etc. on the U.S. if he thinks US made a wrong decision, quick to lay doubt on someone regardless of anything factual.
You really do seem to have some issues with Americans my friend...I don't trust our government here either, but in this instance WRT the war, I'm convinced you are wrong. I'm sure there is profiteering occuring in how it is being fought-but the war itself I have no qualms over.

John P.

i would agree with you IF:
... a country occupied america on trumped up charges and you were happy for the rest of the world to sit there and say it aint no thing... and of course you made absolutely no effort to remove the occupiers from your country and if you did, you were happy to be labled a terrorist

but whatever

i have yet to read anything you, or anyone else for that matter, has written that might persuade me that there were any legitimate and morally justifiable reasons for the war in iraq... quite frankly, whats been offered so far just doesnt wash

write me off as an american hater by all means, im in america now, i have american relatives who i have just celebrated a wonderful new years with and my gf is american... so i am comfortable in where i stand

but whilst on the subject of people hating america - perhaps you can tell us why there is so much of it at the moment... especially amongst your supposed closest allies

you may hate what the government, the politician are doing, but you can not possibly hate american people, you've been here long enough :)
They are a great bunch.
I hope it will change: for us, for you and the rest of the world. In the last decade or so, this country's government seems to head the way which spells trouble, bringing antagonistic views of us, the whole country. I choose to believe, the US will regain its popularity and strength. It's just a bumpy ride for now.
The Europe had its glory in the past, it wants it now, but it may be Asia's turn. We'll see.

ive met some truely wonderful people over here and the love has been genuine :-)