**** war.

----------------------------------------
from CNN
Huge Europe protests move to U.S.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Millions took to the streets of Europe to protest against a rush to war with Iraq in huge demonstrations later repeated in the United States.

In London Saturday, police said the turnout was 750,000, the largest demonstration ever in the British capital. The organizers put the figure at 2 million. Half a million protested in Germany and 300,000 in 60 towns and cities across France.

CNN's Alessio Vinci said that the turnout in Rome -- where PM Silvio Berlusconi has publicly backed the stance of U.S. President George W. Bush -- was also said by the organizers to be one million. It was certainly in the high hundreds of thousands, he said, with many marchers trapped in traffic on the city outskirts.

Later on the scenes were repeated in the U.S. with crowds of antiwar protesters jamming into downtown New York. (Full story)

The huge demonstration in London came on the same day Prime Minister Tony Blair said he "would not shrink" from military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. (Full story)

Nearly all the marches were peaceful though in Athens, Greek riot police fired tear gas at demonstrators who threw stones and petrol bombs when dozens of hooded protestors splintered from a main body of up to 50,000 demonstrators. A parked car was burned but police said there were no arrests or reports of injuries. (Full story)

The biggest demonstrations seen in Europe for years were part of marches by millions across the globe, from the Antarctic to Iceland.

"This war is solely about oil. George Bush has never given a damn about human rights," London mayor Ken Livingstone said in London.

"Give peace a chance, give peace a chance," American peace activist Jesse Jackson chanted to the cheering throng. (Jackson: Not too late)

Hollywood star Tim Robbins, reflecting on the global reach of the protests, said: "The peace movement is acting as one."

In France, one of the staunchest opponents of war, one woman protester said: "The Americans were stressed by September 11 and now they are going completely overboard."

"The biggest threat to peace is the United States, not Iraq," said one pensioner in Finland.

"The war... would only make the Iraq people weaker and would keep Saddam Hussein in power," said Belgian social worker Roselyne Laforge.

The protesters received a boost on Friday when U.N chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gave a mixed report to the United Nations giving hope arms inspections in Iraq could begin to work better. (Full story)

The rallies offered a boost to Iraq's own cause. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in the Italian city of Assisi to pray at the tomb of St. Francis, said: "This is a day all good women and men in the world will show the protest against the war of George W. Bush," he told Reuters. "Our hearts are with them." (Full story)

In a message to those taking part in the demonstrations, Blair said: "I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process."

But he added: "As you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this: if there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.


Protesters march through London towards Hyde Park
"If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started."

A dissenting note was struck by one lone demonstrator in London who mounted a protest outside the Iraqi section of the Jordanian embassy, holding a placard proclaiming his support of military action to bring down Saddam.

Jacques More, 44, a writer from Croydon, south London, said: "War is a last resort and it's a necessary resort when evil dictators rule and murder their own people."

Speaking about the peace marchers, he added: "They have lots of good intentions, they don't want the horrors of war but neither do I. The military don't want to hurt the innocent but it's sometimes necessary to go in and stop a murderer."

CNN's Jim Bittermann reported from Paris that tens of thousands had turned out in the French capital with hundreds of thousands of others expected in 60 towns and cities. More than 100 separate French organisations were taking part and there was "a lot of very intense feeling" against a war, he said.

Peace march organiser Pierre Villard told him: "This is a message to George Bush. People are here because they do not think this war against Iraq is good for the world.

"It is also a message to the French government -- go to the United Nations Security Council and if you can, use your veto."


An anti-war protester makes his way to the march in London.
In Berlin, CNN's Matthew Chance said up to 500,000 protesters had gathered in the city's historic center to demonstrate against a war with Iraq and bolster German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's calls for a peaceful solution.

In Istanbul, Turkey, 5,000 people angrily denounced the U.S., demanding America stay out of saying the last Gulf war had cost their country millions. Foreign ministry Yasar Yakis was on Saturday finishing talks in Washington over an aid package tied to support for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

CNN's James Martone reported that the mood of the demonstrators in a country where the people are overwhelmingly opposed to war was "angry" with the crowd demanding America leaves the Middle East

Meanwhile in Moscow, anti-war protesters braved the cold Moscow weather to march to the U.S. embassy against a possible war. Interfax put the figure at nearly 1,000.

One of their banners signs implored Russian President Vladimir Putin to "Be Firmer With America," while others said "U.S. -- International Terrorist Number One."

Another showed a photograph of the U.S. president with the words: "Butcher: Get out of other people's lands."
----------------------------------------

Check out CNN's page for all the pretty pictures and links and whatnot.


Love, Jenny

P.S. This is a very exciting time to be young and active. They've got to listen to us eventually...Don't sit this one out.

I'm anti-war. It took me a while to make up my mind but definitely anti now.

All peaceful options should be exhausted first. A good saying is "When you have a big hammer, all problems begin to look like nails." The point being, America has a war machine ready for action, that is their big hammer, so they feel the inclination to use it. The problem might not be anything like a 'nail', and need to be treated in an entirely different way.

War causes instability. If America (and Britain) go to war, and succeed in deposing Saddam, the likelihood is the country will be thrown into chaos. Saddam encourages his servilians to carry guns, making potential for a lot of violence and crime.

Iraq would probably be placed under an American mandate. I doubt it would be an easy situation to deal with, America would probably not manage it all that well. While many Iraqis are allegedly not happy with Saddam's regime, I doubt they'd be happy with American rule either, especially after America would have been dropping bombs on them. America's control of Iraq would stir up even more anti-american feeling in the Middle East, not a good thing, creates more terrorists. The war itself would create more terrorists.

Exactly what Bin Laden wanted, conflict between Islam and the West, and many more happy suicide bombers for his cause.

What is the necessity of this war anyhow? It seems Saddam has been controlled effectively by sanctions for a long time. And the inspectors have not found anything.

Saddam is an inhumane dictator- but how can that be a cause for war, when the neighbouring countries of Iran and Syria (I think) plus others, are also dictatorships. There are many human rights crimes commited in Turkey, but we don't do anything against them, we are considering accepting them into the European Union, the US even wants them on their side in the war don't they? Because they're a useful entry poin to to Iraq (I think i've got that right)?

Then there's Israel, where thousands of Palestinians are persecuted, a good example of how conflict breeds terrorism. But of course the US would never invade them. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the list goes on…

There are so many inhumane governments, and countries without democracy, we can hardly use that as a reason for war. I mean come on, we're talking about killing people here, it's a serious length to go to and should not be done without necessity.

This is just the USA on a power drive. I don't see what good war can do Iraq and the stability of the Middle East. I mean look at Afghanistan. And what crimes has Saddam commited against his people in recent years? (that last is a genuine question, I'd be grateful if someone could tell me).

I don't see how Saddam poses a threat right now. If the inspectors had found anything I might think differently but as yet they haven't. I have seen him compared to Hitler, and how people were against war back in the 1930s, but I don't think Saddam is about to invade Europe. Because the inspectors haven't found anything, and America is keeping too close an eye on him for him to be planning anything of the kind.

Saddam is comparable to Hitler only in the sense that he is a sadistic murdering individual, but that should not be used as a basis for war. He can be contained, and has been contained. A war could in both long and short term be worse for the Iraqi people than his regime. It's certainly a greater threat to stability on a wider scale.

This is no nail.
Let there be peace.

Bob, can your argument be any more unrealistic? For a country to be driven into slavery from an outside source in the modern day world is rediculous, especially Iraq taking over America..................however, the American government would not have too much trouble driving its own people to work down in the coal mines, as long as there are plenty of right wing nut jobs like you around to support them.

Einstein was quite the pacifist himself.

Still, it's irrelevant.


Love, Jenny

Albert Einstein also said, in a letter to a pacifist, " If all the young people in america act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery"

Here's my anti-war essay. I never knew i had such sentiments inside of me. Read it please. Critize it. Enjoy it.



As National Security Advisor, how would I prevent war with Iraq?

Albert Einstein once said, “Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved through understanding.” As the National Security Advisor, I would emphasize the positive consequences of exploring humane alternatives to war with Iraq. Ending the economically subverting sanctions that America still supports, would be the first piece of anti-terrorism policy that I’d help push through Congress. Relieving the Iraqi people of these economic sanctions, would definitely ameliorate the anti-American sentiments in Iraq, because it would help improve the dire economy that the Iraqi’s have endured for the past decade. The economy would develop by opening the country for many job opportunities. With the increase of available jobs, Iraqis may feel that America is taking the initiative to understanding their struggle. Thus, a people who notice that their feelings are being taken into consideration, are less likely to desire violent change through terrorist acts.
Another method to reducing global tension and the likelihood for additional terrorist attacks is by deliberating American disarmament. If we expect other countries to destroy their weapons of mass destruction, we have to assure them with evidence that we are willing to practice our preachings. Though a controversial matter, I would inundate the President with evidence of the enormous health and environmental
threat that our nuclear weapons pose to the public, and future generations. Just by storing the weapons, the nuclear waste that our dormant weapons produce, send a myriad of different toxins into the air! President Bush would surely consider alternatives to his present war hawk agenda.
Our unyielding support of the Israelis in the middle-eastern crisis definitely contributed to our victimization during the 9-11 attacks. For this reason, I’d implore the President to take a more objective stance in dealing with the problem. Favoritism in regards to foreign policy is never a constructive behavior. The Arabic and Palestinian people clearly see this prejudice, in the policies of America and feel that they are being excluded from America’s political circle of “compassion”. This isolation shoves them into the belief that they must radicalize their ideas in hopes to defend their culture and livelihood. Exclusion from America’s humanitarian policies also force the Palestinians to become intractable when it comes to peace talks, and possible reconciliations. By the President being more understanding of the struggle that the Israelis and the Palestinians undergo, Palestinians would likely acquire less abhorrent feelings for the US, and the probability for future terrorist attacks on American soil would decrease.
Though Iraq and various Arabic nations pose a threat to America, President Bush needs to realize that these aren’t the only countries that have anti-American sentiments. Limiting our anti-terrorist efforts to these countries blinds us of the threat that other nations pose, thus making America an easy target. As National Security Advisor, I’d gather evidence that reflects the worldwide opposition to America.

By showing him that there are more countries to than just Iraq and Afghanistan to be alarmed about, he’d undoubtedly globalize his anti-terrorist efforts. This would help secure America from future terrorist attacks by allowing us to investigate more governments regarding their feelings toward America; and their possession of nuclear weapons.
In conclusion, my suggestions to the President, as the National Security Advisor would emphasize peaceful and compassionate alternatives to war with Iraq and other countries. There are many alternatives to violent occupation that have not been explored by the Bush administration. Though an army can destroy a “dictatorial regime”, it is quite likely that it will be unable to placate the feelings of the people, or gain their trust. An anonymous philosopher once articulated, “War doesn’t show who’s right, just who’s left.” Unfortunately, the only thing that will be left after war with Iraq, are the remains of civilians.

quote:

---

Oh, really? I think that this war is only going to create greater conflict and instability between the western and the Muslim world. War, in this case, is only a short-term solution to the U.S.A's problems.

---

Well, we're already royally screwed in the Muslim/West relationship department. So many will be happy if Saddam is gone. Actually I would say that the instability will be a short term affect. It will remove Saddam quickly, and yes, the government that will replace him will be weak at first (ANY new government is weak, the US invasion and re-construction would actually increase the chances of success by homogenizing the groups designing and implementing the government.) But the fact that Saddam and the socialist Baaths are gone will open up Iraq for HUGE amounts of economic and cultural growth. These things help stability and properity. War is the quickest and most effective way to remove Saddam.

The sooner he is gone, the better. And you can't tell me that a civil war is going to be better in the long run for Iraq. Because if Iraq is to prosper, Saddam and the Baath's must be gone. And I already discussed the solutions and results of that.

quote:

---

I think that war is ALWAYS a bad thing, although sometimes necessary. I think what you mean is that sometimes, it is the better of two evils.

---

I think that in this situation, war is the most effective and best way to go about things. Reletive to the other solutions in this case, a US war is good.

quote:

---

Not to gripe, but isn't that one of America's motives in waging this war?

---

America is not going to make Iraq a territory. We are not going to make it part of the United States. What we are doing is attacking a forgien government. A government who's existence is detrimental to the reigion, the US, and many other Western powers. Saddam would invade other countries and put them (the citezenry) under his direct control through coersion and martial law. The US is doing nothing of the sort.

quote:

---

Do you really think it's going to be that simple? I am very skeptical of the idea that the army is going to march in, liberate the Iraqi people from their evil dictator and make them into a democracy. It'd be nice if that happened, but realistically I don't think so.

---

Of course it's not going to be that simple, I only gave a rough outline. It's not my position to spend the time and thought to make a detailed and effective plan to set up this government. But it can and will be done. History has shown that things like this are possible in countries that have had experiance in the past with democratic ideas, prosperity, and free society. Iraq fits that bill.

quote:

---

Just look at Afghanistan

---

Afganistan is no Iraq. There are vast differences between these countries. Besides the fact that Afganistan is a completely undeveloped country with very very little government control and infrastructure, it is also a historical no-mans-land. Iraq has many other differences if you look into it.

quote:

---

Also, if we're on some kind of mercy mission here and only have greater global stability in mind, why aren't we talking about attacking the dictatorships in Kuwait and other neighbouring countries to Iraq?

---

Because they're already mostly stable and prosperous. That's the goal at moment, not nessecarily freedom of the citizens. However, there are many in the Bush administration who are dissatisfied with SA, Kuwait, and others like them. But for now, the enemy of my enemey is my friend. It's a valid philosophy.

quote:

---

I think we're just going to create more problems, especially with terrorism.

---

Expand on that.

There are already millions who hate us, a few more isn't going to make a difference, especially because the extremists will push anything at all into anti-US propaganda. The people who end up joining the terrorists aren't usually the smartest people. Read my point on the effect of propaganda that I posted before.
If we remove Saddam and in the process make Iraq a better place, the PR in our favor will actually far outweigh that of Al-Quaida.

quote:

---

Maybe so, but I'd rather we persevere with that than resort to war. War isn't something you try just because you're feeling frustrated with the peaceful options in settling a dispute. Let's just try murdering some people, see if that works… War is (or should be) a last resort. If I truly believed we had attempted every other way of controlling the situation with Iraq and that Saddam was still posing a real threat, I would have no objection to war.

---

It's not about preservence or frustration, It's that armed conflict will yield better results than prolonged diplomacy. I think you missed that point before.

all these protestors will say " why did I do that?" as thier walking in shackles toward the coal mines to work 24/7 withought pay.

It's so nice to see anti-war activists out and about...... It just makes my day. Sorry for this completely pointless post, but somebody had to do it.

quote:

---

military action is going to be nessecarry to disarm Saddam, and that Saddam and the Baath party need to be removed because if they are allowed to grow in power, or even given the chance to do so, they will serisouly threaten the US and western holdings in the area, which in turn will make our countries less stable and less prosperous. I'm not denying the fact that the US is doing this in large part because we want to expand our power base. A stronger US will lead to greater stability across the globe.'

Oh, really? I think that this war is only going to create greater conflict and instability between the western and the Muslim world. War, in this case, is only a short-term solution to the U.S.A's problems.

'you are being closed minded in that war is always and unquestionably a bad thing. In my eyes it isn't. It is a reality, and sometimes the only effective way to go about things. This is a whole other topic, but this dichotomy between those who think of war as an option, and those who see it as a disaster is the reason we even have a dissagreement.'

I think that war is ALWAYS a bad thing, although sometimes necessary. I think what you mean is that sometimes, it is the better of two evils.

'Saddam over the years have pushed this situation to the point that war is the best option, but there are still those who will never see war as an option. These people give support to others who don't see the war to be in thier personal interst. Thus a foothold is born, and the anti-war propaganda movement starts up. It's just that right now, the war is not in the best intersts of a few powerful groups, and you have the cycle born. The longer we wait, the farther we are from the real solution: Forced removal of the Baath party.
While this isn't an exact parallel to WWII, the lesson still rings true, dictators who repeatedly attack neighboring countries in an effort to gain territory'

Not to gripe, but isn't that one of America's motives in waging this war?

'and fight the current world order are not candidates for pacifist appeasement. Saddam will continue to jerk us around, whilst we waste time and money dealing with the crisis he poses, possibly still going to war.
It would be better if a large, dominating force takes power away from Saddam, sets up a local government, and gives it back to the citizens while pushing them in the direction of national re-construction.'

Do you really think it's going to be that simple? I am very skeptical of the idea that the army is going to march in, liberate the Iraqi people from their evil dictator and make them into a democracy. It'd be nice if that happened, but realistically I don't think so. Just look at Afghanistan. Also, if we're on some kind of mercy mission here and only have greater global stability in mind, why aren't we talking about attacking the dictatorships in Kuwait and other neighbouring countries to Iraq? The likelihood is that Iraq will be put under American administration (in which case the U.S.A can have all the oil they want - handy) and I'm not sure the Iraqi people will be too happy about that.

'We remove Saddam, we remove the crisis he creates.'

I think we're just going to create more problems, especially with terrorism.

'That is the likely outcome. Now, we focus on other problems, North Korea, Iran, France ( ), and anything else that comes up.
We're past the point of no return on this one, It's war with Saddam, or a longer, inneffective, drawn out inspection schedual that weakens our position and strengthens our enemies.'

Maybe so, but I'd rather we persevere with that than resort to war. War isn't something you try just because you're feeling frustrated with the peaceful options in settling a dispute. Let's just try murdering some people, see if that works… War is (or should be) a last resort. If I truly believed we had attempted every other way of controlling the situation with Iraq and that Saddam was still posing a real threat, I would have no objection to war. But I don't believe it. I think there are too many selfish and non-vital motives for war with Iraq. I've taken a long time making my mind up on this, looking at both sides of the issue, and I've come to the conclusion that we are making a mistake. Not to sound like a clichéd movie script, but I have a baaaad feeling about this…

'So the real question isn't who has the most people screaming the loudest, It's what option makes more sense to those in power. Welcome to the age of the American Empire. We'll see how it goes...

---

Yikes! That's Vietnam talk! There comes a point when you overstep your right to interfere with other countries.

Bex

I'm tired as all heck and i just drove an '88 Nissian Sentra home through a blizzard and 3 inches of snow, but i want to give a brief answer to on of your points.

quote:

---

What's more, we're talking about a full-blown war. Worst-case senario estimates drawn up have collaterol damage as high as 80,000. Now, I know that the CIA supposedly doesn't carry out assassination missions anymore (yeah right), but why are we even discussing a full scale invasion at this point? Bush keeps talking about "taking Saddam out", so why can't we do just that, and keep the civilians (relatively) out of it?

---

The problem with just asssasinating him is complex:

1.) Some have already tried, but they've killed on of his many doubles. Rember he has those, and how hard it is to assinate someone without someone ultimately finding out

2.) Even if Saddam was to be killed, he already has plenty of plans for either of his two sons (Uday, and whats-his-name) to take over. Both of these men are more sadistic than thier father. I beleive it was Uday who supervised the torture of the 20 allied (not sure if they were all american) POW's in the Gulf War. I had the oppurtunity to listen and speak to one of these POW's. His tailbone was broken for the entire time his was held. Only he didn't notice it because the pain from the rest of the torture overwhelmed it. But I digress.

3.) The "nice support structure" you mentioned isn't exactly just for Saddam, but it has centered around him since he has been the leader for the past 20 odd years. Technically the support structure is designed to keep the Baath party, which Saddam heads, in power. You take out Saddam, the Party will still be there. It will probably be thrown into a bit of chaos, but it will still be there.

With the Baath party in power, the only option for true liberation would be internally provoked civil war. This is very unlikely, due to our lack of support in the past, and the citizenry's lack of weapons. And once it would get rolling, your not going to have one united front against the Baath's, you'll have potentially dozens of factions.
In the end, that scenerio is going to me MUCH bloodier, much longer, and much more destabilizing than a combined, acute, powerful US-lead invasion. And you'll still end up with a fractured country with no real ruling order.

There's very few ways to remove an entire totalitarian party than the scenerio described above. So you might see why I would say, if the goal is to remove Saddam and the Baath's, an American invasion would be much cleaner.

quote:

---

I'm not trying to pretend that I have all the answers, I just feel there hasn't been enough public discussion of the issue and all of the options.

---

Perhaps there hasn't. But I'm satisfied with my position right now. It is largely debates and arguments like these that have led to my current convictions. So I'm convinced to a point that further discussion might help iron out the wrinkles, but it won't change the overall solution.

Well I guess that wasn't so brief...

DrStrangelove-

First, I really really want to thank you for being so damn reasonable and intelligent about all this. It makes it actually pleasant to have a discussion with you (as opposed to some people...) So, thanks. (I hope I can do that someday.)

quote:

---

But here is the problem, (please try not to take offense to this) you are being closed minded in that war is always and unquestionably a bad thing. In my eyes it isn't. It is a reality, and sometimes the only effective way to go about things. This is a whole other topic, but this dichotomy between those who think of war as an option, and those who see it as a disaster is the reason we even have a dissagreement.

---

I'll admit, I'm fairly set in my ways about this one. However, if there were a situation that I really thought called for war, I think I'd reluctanctly accept it, and try to get involved in making it as minimal as possible. I don't believe this is such a situation. I mean, were talking about one government -- and since it's such a ****ed up dictatorship, it's kinda more like one man with his nice support structure -- that's causing the problem at hand. I don't want to come across as irrational (as I fear I have), so I'd like to clarify that I do not think Saddam should have such power in his own country, let alone access to weapons of mass destruction. I would totally support a reasonable plan to remove him from power. However, I don't think our government is the one to do it. We've got to much to gain from it, and too poor a track record to do it right.

What's more, we're talking about a full-blown war. Worst-case senario estimates drawn up have collaterol damage as high as 80,000. Now, I know that the CIA supposedly doesn't carry out assassination missions anymore (yeah right), but why are we even discussing a full scale invasion at this point? Bush keeps talking about "taking Saddam out", so why can't we do just that, and keep the civilians (relatively) out of it?

I'm not trying to pretend that I have all the answers, I just feel there hasn't been enough public discussion of the issue and all of the options.


Love, Jenny

P.S. Jill, you can count me in on your revolution. I'm sick of this culture.

P.P.S. Bob, have you ever even attended one of these protests? You might be surprised...

The bigger a mob gets the lower its collective intelligence becomes... Of course, these protesters never had much intelligence anyway.

P.S.
if you start a revolution count on me to start a counter-revolution

quote:

---

It's too bad that DrStrangelove is starting to sound just a bit too much like Marine16. Don't give into the Dark Side, Herr Doktor!

---

Lol, Oh GOD! Please oh please don't associate me with that moron. He's one of those propaganda-raised monkeys.

quote:

---

But don't you think its a little strange that leaders such as George W. Bush and Tony Blair have given so many speeches on the importance of the overthrow of Hussein, and have worked so hard to convince the world of this importance, that after all that so many "stupid" people would take to the streets in protest?

---

Actually no I don't think it's that odd. Mostly because there are now large anti-war anti-west and anti-american propaganda movements and organizations around the world. It helps to counteract the governemnt forms, but the nature of many of these movments is that of active resistance. That is why you constantly see these large protests against government, and corporations, and very few for them.
1.) The supportes of the government's polcies tend to not see a reason to be active, because the government sees things thier way, and there is no point in making a protest against a minority.
2.) The governments message is usually one that goes against public unrest and looks for stability. They aren't asking or arranging these marches. The Anti-war movement does.

So, the governmental propaganda tends to cause people to stay home, whilst the (for lack of a better term) Anti-Government propaganda causes the opposite.

quote:

---

And we're not talking about just a bunch of leftist radicals or staunch isolationists here; this is the biggest anti-war protest since Vietnam.

---

Well, you have to agree there are a HELL of a lot of these people coming out of the woodwork nowadays. They love having causes that they can scream about.

quote:

---

But how many of the people who (passively, I might add) support the war are totally well-informed? Far less, I'm sure. I really believe that the activist community is much, much less ignorant than the general populace.

---

The question really isn't as much about ignorance as it is about knowladge of the facts. Much of society is simply a bunch of ignoramuses running around with a bit of a mob mentality (the average IQ is 100, that means 50% of the western world has an IQ below 100. To me that is scary, not to brag but mine is somewhere around 140, and most people on here are probably above 120. Think about that one.) So with that said, propaganda has a huge affect on your average citezen. They think they know the facts, but are really just accepting what others tell them.
You see this on both sides:
It's all about Oil, Bush's only reason is because Saddam tried to kill his father, we should nuke the Iraqi's, 7000 dead at WTC instead of 3000, etc.
So basically, I've made my desicion based upon what is logical, what is most likely to be true, and what is most likely to be true based on what i already know.

And that is that military action is going to be nessecarry to disarm Saddam, and that Saddam and the Baath party need to be removed because if they are allowed to grow in power, or even given the chance to do so, they will serisouly threaten the US and western holdings in the area, which in turn will make our countries less stable and less prosperous. I'm not denying the fact that the US is doing this in large part because we want to expand our power base. A stronger US will lead to greater stability across the globe. Yes, it does sound scary, but ultimately something like this is going to need to happen if Humanity is going to advance further, survive, and prosper. We have a mandate now, I think we should use it.

quote:

---

I find it mind-boggling that any war, least of all a pre-emptive, unilateral one, can be considered a success.

---

Well, it's not unilateral. But here is the problem, (please try not to take offense to this) you are being closed minded in that war is always and unquestionably a bad thing. In my eyes it isn't. It is a reality, and sometimes the only effective way to go about things. This is a whole other topic, but this dichotomy between those who think of war as an option, and those who see it as a disaster is the reason we even have a dissagreement. Saddam over the years have pushed this situation to the point that war is the best option, but there are still those who will never see war as an option. These people give support to others who don't see the war to be in thier personal interst. Thus a foothold is born, and the anti-war propaganda movement starts up. It's just that right now, the war is not in the best intersts of a few powerful groups, and you have the cycle born. The longer we wait, the farther we are from the real solution: Forced removal of the Baath party.

While this isn't an exact parallel to WWII, the lesson still rings true, dictators who repeatedly attack neighboring countries in an effort to gain territory and fight the current world order are not candidates for pacifist appeasement. Saddam will continue to jerk us around, whilst we waste time and money dealing with the crisis he poses, possibly still going to war.

Any way you look at it, we'll still have to pour huge amounts of money into Iraq. It would be better if a large, dominating force takes power away from Saddam, sets up a local government, and gives it back to the citizens while pushing them in the direction of national re-construction. We remove Saddam, we remove the crisis he creates. That is the likely outcome. Now, we focus on other problems, North Korea, Iran, France ( ), and anything else that comes up.

We're past the point of no return on this one, It's war with Saddam, or a longer, inneffective, drawn out inspection schedual that weakens our position and strengthens our enemies.

So the real question isn't who has the most people screaming the loudest, It's what option makes more sense to those in power. Welcome to the age of the American Empire. We'll see how it goes...

I'm not sounding more like marine, it's just that your getting farther from me in the spectrum of things, and now I'm a lot closer to him relative to you.

And I stayed home and worked on my philosophy homework! Ironically, it was for my Philosophy of Marx class. Yes, we must be active in society! Down with the establishment! REVOLUTION!!... But only after I finish my two page outline first... ;P

It's too bad that DrStrangelove is starting to sound just a bit too much like Marine16. Don't give into the Dark Side, Herr Doktor! (I've always wanted to say that... hee hee hee ) But don't you think its a little strange that leaders such as George W. Bush and Tony Blair have given so many speeches on the importance of the overthrow of Hussein, and have worked so hard to convince the world of this importance, that after all that so many "stupid" people would take to the streets in protest? It would be so much easier for everyone to just nod their heads and let this war take place. But millions chose to make the effort to protest. And we're not talking about just a bunch of leftist radicals or staunch isolationists here; this is the biggest anti-war protest since Vietnam. There must some logical reasons for not going to war at this time. Actually, I could list them all, but it's getting late, so I'll save that for another time. Gute Nacht.