</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by zorweb:
<strong>
I cannot believe you read my rant. You deserve a metal. As you can tell by now I love debate and discussion. That is how we all learn. Or at least how I learn. No need to kick yourself.

Here is some info. I love the internet for making so much info available so easily.

Zionism, the national movement for...in its ancient homeland was attained.

Not all Jewish people are Zionists

I have a wonderful book, “Blood Brothers”, written by a Palestinian Catholic priest who was a child when the Zionists moved into Palestine. (Note that I do not call them Jews because there were already Jews living there side by side with the Muslims and Catholics is peace for a long time. I use the terms to distinguish between the groups and their outlooks.) It’s a sad book with a wonder perspective of forgiveness and moving on. Right now I cannot find it so I don’t have his name.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I doubt, no, I know we will disagree on both the meaning and intent of the word. I was interested only in your definition of the word, not another a website's. I now have your definition and we'll just have to agree to disagree <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> .

I know Jews and Muslims can live together in relative peace. I know it intimately. Hubby's one, I'm the other. So, neither of us (you and I) are unbiased in this matter. I enjoy the majority of your posts/opinions/insights much too much to engage in this particular debate.

Crayongirl,

If you mean to say that the terms “Zionist” and “Jew” are the same then we will have to disagree, respectfully.

The reason I gave a link to a web site it is that it gives the definition that I have heard all my life. As definition from Webster that I’ve enclosed below. These are not definitions I made up. They are the recognized definition of Zionist/Zionism.

One entry found for Zionism.

Main Entry: Zi·on·ism
Pronunciation: 'zI-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1896
: an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel
- Zi·on·ist /-nist/ adjective or noun
- Zi·on·is·tic /"zI-&-'nis-tik/ adjective

Crayongirl,

Not wanting to start a debate on this either, but I am curious to know what you think a Zionist is. I have read some books that spoke of Jews in a favorable light, but didn't equate them with Zionists.

This is just for information and not for fuel for a debate or an attack on you or other Jews.

Thank you,

Petals

Thanks to all who replied to this thread..it's always nice to get a good old fashioned discussion going...

A few points:

Marriedgirl:

Everything you said sounded like it came from the latest newscast regarding the Iraq war. I realize your husband is a member of the military and I feel for you--but there is another opinion. Some recommended reading materials for YOU and everyone else who spouted propaganda on this thread: The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson

Ace:
A few POWs have talked?

Those people were taken to Cuba almost 2 years ago. They're away from their families and the US government still isn't sure what to do with them. They'll in cells that some dogs would be unhappy with and some are forced to stand when sleeping. Ever heard of pressure tactics? These are the same tactics that can make innocent people admit to crimes they didn't commit.

Faith:

Most of your argument is well taken, however, I disagree that if Saddam doesn't run his democracy the way the US does, that it's WRONG. Many times in history, the people have overthrown a government that rapes and pillages---this could have easily happened in Iraq as well. I don't think it's the responsibility of the US to fix this problem.

CrayonGirl:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> And exactly WHY did these people leave their countries of birth? My guess? To have a better and more free life. Interesting that they couldn't have that at home. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">A better life maybe, not necessarily a more FREE one. That's your interpretation. My father is an immigrant...he's not here because a dictator ruled his homeland.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I realise that a great number of people in other countries don't like the US. Personally, I no longer care. IMO, we're d*mned if we do and d*mned if we don't. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hey--you said it, not me. In fact, I have nothing against Americans OR the people of any other countries--it's the bloody governments that piss me off.

Chris:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What about the UN Resolution agreed to by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Parliament back in 1991 that said they would give up X, Y, and Z and that UN inspectors would be allowed UNHINDERED access to all Iraq for inspection? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hmm....what about the UN resolution that denounced the US led attacks on IRAQ? OH--doesn't that count? Is it only IRAQ that has to obey the UN? Besides---Iraq had 17 UN infractions, the US had 70....Israel had 90. What's your point?

Zuzu:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I have internet that is not filtered by the gov't. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Internet is filtered by the government in many Arab nations, including those who are direct US allies. The internet is filtered there because of RELIGIOUS reasons...In many Arab nations, religion and government exist together...it has nothing to do with diminished freedoms.

OH...and a quick note--Christianity is tolerated in IRAQ, yet, not tolerated in many other middle eastern countries--pretty darn flexible for a MANIAC like Saddam, huh?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Of course, I see SH slaughtering more people and raping and abusing them more than the US troops are. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Where? I don't see any of that? In fact, the only place I've ever heard stuff like this is in George Bush's dissertations.

Zorweb:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Since then I’ve often wished that the USA would just turn it’s back on the world, keep our money to ourselves. (Look it’s not just money.. it’s the sweat off our brow turned into and exchangeable resource.) I wish we would stop buying from the international markets, stop importing our jobs out side the USA, and so forth. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How much money does the United States currently owe in loans from other countries? Didn't it just hit ONE TRILLION dollars?

You want to stop buying from international markets? LOL..that's a laugh--Luckily for their friendship with CHINA (OH SORRY, that's a non-sequitor)you wouldn't have any affordable goods in your marketplace. The United States doesn't TRADE with other countries to keep THEM afloat, you know!

Slapnuts:

I'm not going to pick apart your quotes because you're the type of person who sticks to their guns, right or wrong. I don't see any need to...but I will say this---I DISAGREE completely with CNN's use of these glitzy names like "shock and awe"....WTF---AWE? What's so awesome about tearing a country apart? This isn't a videogame--it's people's lives, their homeland....

In closing, I'd like to say again, that I am NOT Anti-American, by a long shot...I am not against any of the innocent victims of these TERRIBLE governments.

While I feel for those of you who take the newscasts literally, I choose to read everything I can, not just during times like these, but always.....I don't trust the American government's reasons for going to IRAQ. By saying this, I'm not breaking any laws...I'm not stopping anyone from going about their everyday lives...I'm simply putting into effect one of the great US freedoms---freedom of speech.

Take my rantings for what they're worth--another perspective...and thanks for yours, as well.

Hoping the war ends soon.......

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by aeri:
<strong>Ace:
A few POWs have talked?

Those people were taken to Cuba almost 2 years ago. They're away from their families and the US government still isn't sure what to do with them. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Here you are taking what you read/hear and distorting it to suit your views. NO, they were NOT taken to Cuba 2 years ago, they surrendered here in the last few days. Sheesh.

Amanda

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by aeri:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What about the UN Resolution agreed to by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Parliament back in 1991 that said they would give up X, Y, and Z and that UN inspectors would be allowed UNHINDERED access to all Iraq for inspection? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hmm....what about the UN resolution that denounced the US led attacks on IRAQ? OH--doesn't that count? Is it only IRAQ that has to obey the UN? Besides---Iraq had 17 UN infractions, the US had 70....Israel had 90. What's your point?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">[/qb]

Um, so it is international law that the US can't invade Iraq? It IS international laws that Saddam has been breaking for YEARS. Someone else already stated here that no country has to have UN sanction to start a war. They don't have to ask the UN if they can, either. The US asked for UN support, and thanks to France and Germany stonewalling they didn't get it. MOST other countries supported ENFORCING INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Amanda

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by aeri:
<strong>Slapnuts:

I'm not going to pick apart your quotes because you're the type of person who sticks to their guns, right or wrong. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> So am I generally right or generally wrong?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>I DISAGREE completely with CNN's use of these glitzy names like "shock and awe"....WTF---AWE? What's so awesome about tearing a country apart? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

They report it that way, because that's how the military characterises it. I think that they call it that because the idea is to shock them with how much more precise their technology has become in 12 years. (Think about that, computers were DOS based back then. Windows ,if it existed, was just in it's infancy. Now we've had versions 1 to 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, NT, XP and others) Iraq's technology has pretty muched stayed put.

Iraq was soundly defeated last time around, byt Saddam remained as ruler. He's been confident that he can draw the US into a costly guerilla war. The idea of the "shock and awe" is to give Saddam a "Holy Sh*t" moment where he hopefully will realize that he's fighting a losing cause and just surrender.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Hoping the war ends soon...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ditto.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ace61502:
<strong>It IS international laws that Saddam has been breaking for YEARS. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In all fairness, America breaks International law frequently, whenever it suits her purpose.

International law is a pretty loose concept and I don't think that is enforcable enough to be relevant anyway.

The stated reason for this war ought to be that Saddam is supporting terrorism. Nothing more.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by aeri:
<strong>I don't see any need to...but I will say this---I DISAGREE completely with CNN's use of these glitzy names like "shock and awe"....WTF---AWE? What's so awesome about tearing a country apart? This isn't a videogame--it's people's lives, their homeland....</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is plenty of AWE in plan the US MILITARY calls Shock and Awe (the name didn't come from CNN!). The definition of AWE:

1 : an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime <stood in awe of the king> <regard nature's wonders with awe>
2 : archaic : a : DREAD, TERROR b : the power to inspire dread

Have you never done a crossword puzzle with the clue "to inspire fear". The answer is always AWE. Just so you know.

Amanda

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Slapnuts:
<strong>In all fairness, America breaks International law frequently, whenever it suits her purpose.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Pray tell.....

Hmm....what about the UN resolution that denounced the US led attacks on IRAQ?
What resolution is that? When was it entered, debated, voted on by the U.N.? Not saying you need to be an expert, but tell me SOMETHING about it.

I don’t believe (I may be wrong) there have been any resolution introduced, let alone passed such as this, either in the Security Council or the General Assembly.

And you could call it the Iraqi forced, US led, visibly supported by at least 40 countries attacks.

Aeri,
Could you please point me to a credible source that says that the USA has “ONE TRILLION dollars” in outstanding debts to other countries?
Now let’s talk about how many billions upon billions of dollars the United States has loaned counties world wide, how many billions upon billions of dollars in debt the USA have forgiven to countries worldwide.

You want to stop buying from international markets? LOL..that's a laugh--Luckily for their friendship with CHINA (OH SORRY, that's a non-sequitor)you wouldn't have any affordable goods in your marketplace. The United States doesn't TRADE with other countries to keep THEM afloat, you know!

For one thing I do not think our trading with China is a non-sequester. Those were not my words.

As for the USA trading with other countries, sure we do it for cheaper goods, as does Canada. But we do not HAVE TO. We could produce most, if not all things internally. I for one think that cheap junk is not a reason to sell our country. We are not better off because we have more junk in our homes. One TV, one stereo, etc etc is fine. I recall years ago when the USA had viable clothing and fabric industry we actually had cloths made of good fabrics. Today most clothing is made cheaply from fabrics that my seamstress would have never even considered using.

So you can hang it up on this one.

Aeri, you seem to have a very great hate and distrust of the USA. Since everyone here is wrong if they are from the USA, there is no reason to even try to talk to you.

Those people were taken to Cuba almost 2 years ago. They're away from their families and the US government still isn't sure what to do with them. They'll in cells that some dogs would be unhappy with and some are forced to stand when sleeping. Ever heard of pressure tactics? These are the same tactics that can make innocent people admit to crimes they didn't commit.

Would you prefer that they be treated as Saddam and the Taliban treats their prisoners of war? Or as the terrorists treat their prisoners? Like chopping off heads. That one works well.

Most of your argument is well taken, however, I disagree that if Saddam doesn't run his democracy the way the US does, that it's WRONG. Many times in history, the people have overthrown a government that rapes and pillages---this could have easily happened in Iraq as well. I don't think it's the responsibility of the US to fix this problem.

Please look up the definition for democracy. There has to be a choice at the ballot box for it to be a democracy.

What you are saying it seems is that it is the responsibility of the people of Iraq to fix their own problems? Am I right? That no one in this entire world is responsible for helping other nations? Do you feel the same way when you see some one in your own city with a problem.. Just close your eyes and walk by? It’s their problem not yours? I’m just curious.

And if people from that country ask for help, what then? Is the world community supposed to shut their eyes? Do not forget, there are 40 some nations that support the British/US actions where.

Hey--you said it, not me. In fact, I have nothing against Americans OR the people of any other countries--it's the bloody governments that piss me off.

Sounds to me like you’ve been calling us a bunch of stupid, ignorants, lead by the nose. Sounds like you do have a problem with us.

Hmm....what about the UN resolution that denounced the US led attacks on IRAQ? OH--doesn't that count? Is it only IRAQ that has to obey the UN? Besides---Iraq had 17 UN infractions, the US had 70....Israel had 90. What's your point?

Again, could you point us to a credible source on this? I’d like to read about these. I am not saying they do not exist. I honestly want to see what they are.

OH...and a quick note--Christianity is tolerated in IRAQ, yet, not tolerated in many other middle eastern countries--pretty darn flexible for a MANIAC like Saddam, huh?

From what I’ve heard Saddam is not religious. He does not care what religion people are, only that he can used it to help control them. And yes I have also heard that he does not use religion as a discriminator in who he murders, tortures and rapes.


Of course, I see SH slaughtering more people and raping and abusing them more than the US troops are.

Where? I don't see any of that? In fact, the only place I've ever heard stuff like this is in George Bush's dissertations.

You are kidding us right? If you have only seen these things mentioned here then you have been hiding from them. Please do some in-depth reading. The atrocities of the Saddam and his men have been reported world wide for years, even before the 1990 war. If you are going to argue a point. Please get your facts straight.

Slapnuts: I'm not going to pick apart your quotes because you're the type of person who sticks to their guns, right or wrong.

Aeri, I am afraid that you are proving to be just as likely to support arguments with nothing to fall back on. From what you have said, you are most likely to believe things said against the USA. I guess we are just an evil empire.

In closing, I'd like to say again, that I am NOT Anti-American, by a long shot...I am not against any of the innocent victims of these TERRIBLE governments.

I am sorry but from what you have said you are very Anti-American. You see you cannot dislike the ‘terrible government’ of a free country and like the people. We are one and the same. Just as you are with your government in Canada.

While I feel for those of you who take the newscasts literally, I choose to read everything I can, not just during times like these, but always.....I don't trust the American government's reasons for going to IRAQ. By saying this, I'm not breaking any laws...I'm not stopping anyone from going about their everyday lives...I'm simply putting into effect one of the great US freedoms---freedom of speech.

Take my rantings for what they're worth--another perspective...and thanks for yours, as well.

There you go again.. you are so much more, well worldly, then the rest of us. YOU choose to read all the time but well we are just poor misguided stupid Americans. Yes you do have the right to your opinions.. even in the evil empire of the USA where we are, according to you only guided by the propaganda of our government. After all we are too stupid to read and think for ourselves. When one expresses their freedom of speech, with it comes the freedom of others to interpret and speak in return.

I am just shaking my head. You will obviously only listen to that which puts down the USA and makes us into something evil. Now who is listening to whose propaganda.

Zorweb, I agree with you! Excellent post.

Aeri, I think you have done just what you said Slappy does: sticking to your guns, whether right or wrong, and not just in this thread. Please take that as a suggestion for introspection and not as a judgment. We are all guilty of that at some point. I just suggest this because you are willing to tell someone else to do so (Slappy). If you still think you're right, that's fine, but if you're going to criticize someone for something, it's obviously a trait you do not find valuable and I would assume you don't what it to be characteristic of yourself.

Petals

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> In closing, I'd like to say again, that I am NOT Anti-American, by a long shot...I am not against any of the innocent victims of these TERRIBLE governments.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Everything you posted sure sounds Anti-American to me.

I would also like to know the resolution # and verbage on the following referenced UN resolution:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Hmm....what about the UN resolution that denounced the US led attacks on IRAQ? OH--doesn't that count? Is it only IRAQ that has to obey the UN? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

I am a proud American, love my freedoms, including freedom of speech, but have a few questions about what is going on.

Why can't we get this man out of the country without destroying it?

Why wasn't the bidding for the reparation of Iraq put out to the public, but rather a select few companies, which one by the way is closely related to an unnamed cabinet official?

Why is a plan (to go to war with Iraq) that was originally thought up in 1998 by Don Rumsfeld, [censored] Cheney, and about 8 other members of the now current 40 member Cabinet, being executed and approved upon now when in 1998, we could not get it passed?

Why are we getting rid of a man who is clearly a monster; a man who instills fear, destroys his country and forces his beliefs on his people; by instilling fear, destroying the country and forcing our beliefs on the Iraqi people?

Along with our administration's well thought out theory that it is better to act and prevent than to sit back and wait and see, why aren't we more concerned about the long road ahead that the United States will have in rebuilding our severely damaged relations with Spain, France, Germany, Canada, North Korea, Mexico, Russia, China, possibly Turkey at this juncture, let's see, did I leave anybody out? Why is that not a concern?

Are we that "right" that we are going to assume that everything will be "ok" when this is over. Do you think that Russia is going to be our buddy after we hault their oil supplies? Are the Iraqi people going to like us that much after WE decide how we are going to spend the already frozen liquid assets of the Iraqi people currently in our possession which we are going to use for Humanitarian Aide, and who is going to decide how to use THEIR money?

I am truly proud of my president for making these very hard decisions and acting upon them as he has seen fit based on the information provided to him, and will stand proud when the sh*t hits the fan, and believe me it will.

The Iraqi people (from the limited interviews I've seen), are welcoming this invasion to oust a dictator that they have not been able to oust themselves for over 20 years.

We are going to rid a mad man from the helm of a arsenol of weapons (there were reports that the supposed non-existent weapons were being fired at the Americans).

We will hopefully, as a fringe benefit, get rid of Osama Bin Laden.

But again, I think the entire world has the same desires to oust Saddam Hussein but just not this way.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ace61502:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Slapnuts:
<strong>In all fairness, America breaks International law frequently, whenever it suits her purpose.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Pray tell.....</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">OK. The first example that pops to mind is the US's UN dues. They haven't been paying them for some time. The US is something like a billion dollars in arrears.

Some of the reasons that they have may seem valid. For example, they withheld dues to protest the fact that they were not on the UN human rights commission and countries like Libya are.

Another example. In the 1980's President Reagan used US resources to topple a leftist government led by President Daniel Ortega.

Nicaragua sued the USA at the International Court of Justice. The US refused to appear before the court during the final hearings on the merits and never recognized the ICJ rulings as binding.

The ICJ found in favor of Nicaragua and awarded unspecified damages that was reportedly as much as $17 billion.

President Bush (Sr) pressured Nicaragua into dropping the case under the threat of cancelling any future U.S. aid to that country.

President Bush (Jr) recently withdrew from Ballistic missile treaties to build his missile shield.

The States also refuses to get on board with international treaties that it does not agree with such as the Kyoto accord, the international conventions on land mines and the international criminal court.

The reason that the rest of the world gets upset at America is that it frequently does what is in it's own interests and to hell with whomever disagrees.

The US is not only a military juggernaught, but a political and economic one as well. They frequently impose their will on other countries for their own benefit, but to the detriment of the other countries.

The concept of "international law" does not really work when one nation is far and away more powerful than any other.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Aeri, you seem to have a very great hate and distrust of the USA. Since everyone here is wrong if they are from the USA, there is no reason to even try to talk to you. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Funny, I didn't say anyone was WRONG, I just disagreed. That's anti-American? Well, maybe I AM anti-American--but who said I had to be pro-American?

My information comes from a website run by Americans---if you'd like to take a peek, you can check it out at www.lewrockwell.com

And I'm not saying everyone from the US is wrong---I pretty much told Slappy he was wrong...and he's a Canuck, just like me <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

<small>[ March 26, 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Nokomis ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Slapnuts:
<strong>The reason that the rest of the world gets upset at America is that it frequently does what is in it's own interests and to hell with whomever disagrees.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My question is WHO DOESN'T. France and Germany didn't agree with this war, and they didn't jump on board with the rest of the world, so we don't have UN support because of a few countries.

Would YOU sign a contract that you didn't agree to the terms of? It isn't just the US that does this, it is just the US that takes flack for this.

Can you point out an infraction of international law where the US put 1000's of lives at risk? Like NOT going to war this week would have done?

Amanda

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by gottobeme0320:
<strong>Why can't we get this man out of the country without destroying it?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

Well, he is pretty stubborn. Besides, they're only trying to attack military targets. If anyone is destroying the country, it's the Iraqis that are setting fires to oil wells.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Why is a plan (to go to war with Iraq) that was originally thought up in 1998 by Don Rumsfeld, [censored] Cheney, and about 8 other members of the now current 40 member Cabinet, being executed and approved upon now when in 1998, we could not get it passed?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

I would disagree that the idea of going to war with Iraq was thought up in 1998, when we did it in 1990 and have regretted letting Saddam off the hook ever since.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Why are we getting rid of a man who is clearly a monster; a man who instills fear, destroys his country and forces his beliefs on his people; by instilling fear, destroying the country and forcing our beliefs on the Iraqi people?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

The Americans actually, I believe, are trying to instill hope in the Iraqi people. They're dropping leaflets by the millions over Iraq explaining that they are trying to liberate them.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Why aren't we more concerned about rebuilding our severely damaged relations with Spain, France, Germany, Canada, North Korea, Mexico, Russia, China, possibly Turkey at this juncture, let's see, did I leave anybody out? Why is that not a concern?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

Most of those countries are allies. Disagreement over Iraq won't be a make or break type issue.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>But again, I think the entire world has the same desires to oust Saddam Hussein but just not this way.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, eventually someone has to take some initiative. The previous President, IMHO was too lax when it came to Terrorist attacks on US property and interests.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ace61502:
<strong>Can you point out an infraction of international law where the US put 1000's of lives at risk? Like NOT going to war this week would have done?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, first of all, I don't disagree with what the States is doing in Iraq. I just disagree with some of the things that they say about it.

They criticize Iraq for ignoring the will of the UN, then they do the same thing. There is also something arrogant about the only country who ever attacked another country with nuclear weapons making themselves the judge of who should have nukes and who shouldn't.

Bush Sr used to say tthat the Gulf War was to restore democracy to Kuwait. Well, Kuwait isn't and never has been democratic.

I just think that they should be honest about their intentions.