We have a quasi-effective, quasi-practiced policy that we will not execute/assinate other leaders. Soldiers-of-fortune, ninja types? Too much TV! To just drop into Iraq and grab Sadamn is not only difficult, think of all of the global outcries against us if we pulled the impossible off. Damned if we do, damned if we don't! Hmm, sound's like our current posture. Political or otherwise. Understand, whichever decision, the vocal outcry of the other side will be deafening if success is not 100% achieved. A conspiracy theorist's field day! Let me give you my personal concern though. I don't think our general populace is prepared for the individual sacrifices associated with a real war. I am also starting to remember the war protesters of the Vietnam era. We complain at waiting in line (for anything) now. Just imagine the gas pump delays and prices if this is a lengthy conflict. We must also understand that our military capacity was downsized greatly since the Gulf war. Clinton downsized us into a very troubling state in light of what we are trying to do now. Multiple front fighting? I just ain't too sure right now. I also don't think the average person in this country understands the resolve behind the concept of the religious war. And that is truly what we will become the focus of. Wait until we do absorb the next homeland attack. The administration will be railed by the public for not seeing it coming, or not alerting us about what they knew. More hindsight finger pointing and ridicule by after-the-fact experts. Rather than continuing to banter here about how we don't like what we all know is ultimately coming, we should start sharing the experiences of what we think will be coming so that we can prepare for what is coming. Our middle class should be getting ready for a massive financial chaos. The Wall Street programs should all be getting ready (preparing) for a real slap. The youth will be tested. By youth I mean those who: a) don't recognize how to read a computer chart based on this type of war climate that has never existed before to be able to correctly computer model; and b) those who are controlling vast fiscal responsibilities who are too young to understand where the mental state of a peoples go when this climate appears.
IMHO, the two great evils facing all nations at the present time are corruption and terrorism. Of the two, corruption is the widest spread evil, and makes the common man suffer more than anything while the elite few make out like bandits and live like kings. Every country has some level of corruption. But there seems to be a direct but inverse relationship between how open and free a society is, and how much corruption there is in that country. Dictatorships tend to be very high in corruption, while open free democracies tend to have much less of it.
I understand that your wife is jew and that she is afraid... But that is not a reason to tolerate injustice.. Be logical and forget your fear and emotions... all The nations except the US are condemning Sharon terrorist acts and only the US considers Arafat a terrorist???? Sharon is a DISASTER, contrary to what you say sharon did not bring peace but violence and violence leads to more violence... There has never been more terrorists Attacks than with Sharon in power... and please recall Sabra and Chatila... I understand that you have compassion for israelis but having compassion for both sides will play positively... Believe me... Violence brings only violence... Sharon has already murdered several thousands innocent civilians and palestinians hate him.. He should be in jail today for crimes against humanity... NOW about a land... you keep on bringing the same argument day after day... No it is bot the palestinian that refused the agreement ... just your imagination and Barak talks and no Palestinian are not all from the hamas... terrorism disapear with justice YES I BELIEVE IN THAT...... Remember germany this is a very good example.. there was the 1st world war and germany was defeated .... the french imposed on germans drastic conditions.... german became poorer and poorer and radicalised themselves. Hitler found a country ready to be lead by a fanatic and you know the rest of the story.... they voted massivaly Hitler and all the efforts of the german nation were oriented towards revenge... Freaking isnt it!!!! One word "INJUSTICE" lead to one of the greatest massacre in history of the 20th century and I am sure that if german were leaving in an opulent state they won't be looking for revenge or killing others... extremism always grow with crisis unemployement insecurity etc... After the second world war the allys were intelligent enough not to oppress germany again and germany became a democratic country and France and Germany are the best friends in the world... It is doable... even people that were nazis and killed 5 million jews changed into a democratic state ... So open your eyes and never ever forget history...
To the whole understanding you have to add in the factor that Hitler and his regime were gone. Terminated (self or otherwise) with a prejudice! They no longer had a direct major impact on a populace that was ready to follow the country's leadership. They had no control of where any allied inspections were to be conducted. They gave up many abilities to wage war again. And the peoples also moved forward without harboring the personal desires to ultimately retaliate for being beaten. But leaders of a war can be left in power. Look at Japan! We didn't call for the death of their leaders. But we did get the agreement for disarmament that allowed us ALL to move ahead. Even after the mass destruction and bitter feelings, the war was ended. We even chipped in in the rebuilding efforts afterwards. Again, the peoples move ahead without a hidden fire for death to the victor. Hitler was being pursued even though he controlled many active weapons for mass destruction. He had already killed millions and showed the ability to be popular amongst his peoples. Many of his followers were dedicated until the end. But you see, war was not the desire of the masses. Only the chumps that were in power. ONCE YOU TOTALLY REMOVE THE EVIL, things, the world, will find the level. I believe it could happen again.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020924/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_40 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y He added: "Our case is simply this: not that we take military action come what may, but that the case of insuring Iraqi disarmament as the U.N. itself has stipulated, is overwhelming." But left-wing lawmakers said the government had provided little new information and remained unconvinced of the need for war. "Tony Blair will have to do better than this if he wants to convince the British public to go to war," said Labor lawmaker Diane Abbott. Within minutes of the release of the dossier, anti-war protesters outside Parliament began blasting John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance." A poll in Tuesday's Guardian newspaper said 86 percent of Britons believe the government should seek the support of the British Parliament and the United Nations ( news - web sites) before taking military action against Iraq. Maj. Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said the report "does not produce any convincing evidence, or any killer fact, that says that Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) has to be taken out straight away."
Thank you for the kind words, Cesko. The impressiveness of your intellect is surpassed only by that of your incisive logic. Forgive me if I don't exchange ad hominem nonsense with you. If you'd like to detail which non-NY Times evidence might suffice for a brainwashed robot, please do.
Yes I don't think that people wants war and enoug is enough to paraphrase BUSH When we talk of evil even the Israeli newpaper Haaretz said there was worse evils... and I agree... Instead of doing war work with those population and try to understand how we arrived to that situation and always always always give peace a chance... Of course if Saddam was so evil and we have real evidence of his evilness then he should be eliminated and an attack on Irak would seem logical... But evidences are not there and only propaganda... Blair kept on trumpetting that he had incredible evidence and yet he brought nothing just ifs... but with ifs then many countries should be attacked...
TF2000, I have no doubt that in the face of any and all evidence there will be some that simply will not accept the truth. Its interesting that Ms. Short who you quoted has since changed her mind and agreed that Saddam should be taken out. Now, having lost her voice in your cause, you seek anyone else and find 'left wing' political parties. At this rate, you'll be down to a pair of aging chipmunks in central park who will agree with you and not see the evidence against Saddam. I'm sure you will quote them ad nauseam but how ever will you translate their beautiful language into English? http://specials.ft.com/spdocs/FT3GORGKH6D.pdf
I thought that "86% of the British" were against a unilateral attack... Apparently you are prefering Blair and his ministers to the british people???? Moreover about Ms Short , I am not astonished at all.. pressure is posible especially on a minister that is why british people and labor (which is the party of tony blair by the way) are against the war... Even haaretz a famous israeli newpaper is against going to war... That text is so full lof crap incredible and you really belive in that shit???? Basically no clear or new evidence as always and Chirac commenting the statement said that it was up to the UN to find proves... Whereas something dramatic occurs in palestine today with Israel bringing its F16 and tanks terrorising a whole civilian population and destroying the buildings and all what remains of the palestinian authority and yet all the countries except the US have voted for an end to the criminal attacks of Sharon and yet again instead of justice and applying the law that is stop the attacks of a rogue state the US are still cautioning their acts like the ones of Musharaf or those of Saudia... No my friend if you want to believe in those lies you can but I don't... there are so many military experts and scientists that said that there were no clear evidence of nuclear or even chemical weapons... read the article of Haaretz.. it is not an arab newspaper but an Israeli one... Moreover on the paper Blair said that Saddam violates UN law.. and so does Israel.. why Israel is not attacked in that case???? A state that oppressed palestinian for 50 years.. and stop telling me that they deserve it and that it is their fault... that is rubbish.. Israel kept on violating all the UN resolutions.. all of them without exception 65 resolutions were violated... CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT... Sharon is certainly more dangerous that Saddam for the peace in the world and If Bush was a bit clever he would have known that the real threat for peace in the world is certainly Sharon.. Saddam is already a "has been" its country has nothing and only you and some credule people can be fooled by terms such as arm of massive destruction.....
The controversial former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq says Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are largely disarmed, the "Iraqi threat" is built on a framework of lies and President Bush has betrayed the American people http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/03/19/ritter/index_np.html