war on iraq..

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by JJM

...

I also like to ask what makes you think a democracy won't work? just asking. And was Saddam really a religious dictator? Yes he was Muslim but It was no Iran.


Anzac I know you position on war but now that we are there is something really other than democracy that we can set up. Isn't the only other option a dictator. Just a thought.

The U.S. is in Iraq, up to its neck. So, I agree with you, JJM, that democracy is the only saving grace available to U.S. to do with Iraq, in a kind of post factum rectification and thereby earn for itself approbation.

On the other hand, I believe that the U.S. should be very careful with acting unilaterally, when the rest of the world conspicuously could not see any justification for launching a war, on even a dictatorship -- well, next time around.

Susma Rio Sep

[Quahom1]

Things to think about:

From 1980 to 1988, Iraq used chemical and biological weapons on the armies of Iran (and vice versa), which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000,000 soldiers and civilians.

Iraq also "tested" its chemical weaponry on the northern Kurds (subjects of its own government and country), resulting in the deaths of over 5000 men women and children (all civilian).

In 1990, Iraq sent nearly its entire airforce to Iran (a hated enemy), rather than have it destroyed by the coalition. At the time Iraq was according to Janes, the fourth largest and powerful standing army on earth.

From 1991 to the present day, coalition soldiers of the first Gulf war, continue to suffer from a strange malady called Gulf War Syndrome.

From 1992 to 9/11/2001, the US suffered five terrorist attacks on its soil, each giving rise to even greater and bolder attacks - 1993 Twin towers bomding, two emabassies, The USS Cole in Yemen, and the Twin Towers' destruction.

During this time the president of the US and presiding branches did nothing to stop this escalating violence. His name was Clinton.

Eight months after his replacement took office (Bush), the twin towers came down, and the new change in our governement said this was enough.

The coalition forces of the second part of this Gulf War did in weeks, what other military forces could not do in years (vanquish two terrorist regimes, restore some semblance of order, and give the people of those lands better living conditions than before the war.

1. Russia could not defeat Aphganistan based regime.

2. Iran could not defeat Iraq based regime.

3. The coalition did both.

If oil was what the United States was soley interested in, then it would have been much easier to just go to the UN and get the sanctions lifted from Iraqi oil, and to hell with the people or the region.

In World War II, after the war was declared over, several thousand AMERICAN TROOPS lost their lives, over the course of a couple of years while trying to bring some semblance of order to the countries of Germany and Japan. How? Terroist attacks, ambushes, booby traps and home made bombs. Who were the terroists? German nationals, Japanese nationals, and foriegn insurgents who did not want change, or who had other ideas about who should be the new power in the area.

In 1789, there was a vote in the US Congress to determine what the United State's official language would be. English beat out Dutch-German, by one vote.

The United States is not a democracy; rather a federal republic based on democratic principles. A true democracy would amount to MOB RULE. Its origins can be found in the Athenian form of government, Roman republic, British common law, and as a spicy touch - anarchy or self reliance. An excellent reference for this is a book called "The Federalist Papers".

When asked by the new "citizens" of the United States what form of government do we have (they had no clue, some expected a monarchy), Benjamen Franklin is quoted as saying "a federal republic...if you can keep it." This blazed the trail for ensuring the "people" of the nation becoming educated, literate and questioning.

The United States fought the most vicious civil war in known history. Europe could not believe the ferocity at which brother could battle brother over, political, economic and morale concepts. To a color blind individual, the uniforms were so similar he would not have been able to differentiate between the two.

The United States was dragged kicking and screaming into world politics by our neighbors across the pond. We were generally an "isolationist nation" until World War II.

The United States mentality has not changed in over 400 years, we still believe in doing it ourselves, not asking for hand outs, would rather die than give in, and have a stubborn streak as long as the Milky Way.

We are reluctant to step into the fray, and once in, reluctant to walk away. The United States was made in its parents' collective image, and the parents of the United States is the world.

Nothing new under the Sun folks.

[overdose]

I think democracy won’t work in Iraq, for many reasons. One of which they have religious feuds all the time. This is a country based on massive history and culture; democracy will take hundreds of years to work. When Saddam was in power, he kept and maintained power by killing the civilians. Although it was wrong, it was one of the methods he used. Now with all of the feuds of Iraq having some that support America, some that don’t, different religions, different thoughts, anti-democracy, pro-democracy, woman’s rights, no woman’s rights. With all of these issues it will make the people in Iraq hit heads, and it will turn to hell. With all of this, I believe it won’t work. But we have already started this, so now we will have to finish it. We need to bring the world into Iraq, for it to be possible, maintain power, and peace.




The 10,000 figure I saw a long time ago…I have no idea where it is now.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by overdose

I think democracy won’t work in Iraq, for many reasons. One of which they have religious feuds all the time. This is a country based on massive history and culture; democracy will take hundreds of years to work. When Saddam was in power, he kept and maintained power by killing the civilians. Although it was wrong, it was one of the methods he used. Now with all of the feuds of Iraq having some that support America, some that don’t, different religions, different thoughts, anti-democracy, pro-democracy, woman’s rights, no woman’s rights. With all of these issues it will make the people in Iraq hit heads, and it will turn to hell. With all of this, I believe it won’t work. But we have already started this, so now we will have to finish it. We need to bring the world into Iraq, for it to be possible, maintain power, and peace.

I am optimistic. The obscurantist elements in Iraq will come down to meager fringe groups, like Amish and similar groups in the U.S., once things get to be more and more common, that is, the democratic lifestyle where everyone can pursue life, and the pursuit of happiness, ascribing to the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

It will take a lot of sacrifices from the U.S., but the U.S. will succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq, to its multi-ethnic and multi-reigious peoples.

The U.S. is a well-meaning giant or genie, at times bullyish, but in the long run effective in bringing the good life to the rest of mankind. It is still a very young nation, and it will learn wisdom in dealing with other older nations as it progresses in some kind of destiny for the enlightenment of mankind on its path toward universal brotherhood.


To Quah who writes:

The United States is not a democracy; rather a federal republic based on democratic principles. A true democracy would amount to MOB RULE. Its origins can be found in the Athenian form of government, Roman republic, British common law, and as a spicy touch - anarchy or self reliance. An excellent reference for this is a book called "The Federalist Papers".

Of course, no one is saying that a democracy should be a 'democrazy' or anarchy in all its most extreme variations. Democracy before anything else is founded upon the rule of law. The distinction between a true democracy amounting to MOB RULE and a government founded upon democratic principles is, I think, an example of a straw man.

Otherwise, I must commend you for binging up a number of facts for the consideration of careful observers.

Susma Rio Sep

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Things to think about_:

From 1980 to 1988, Iraq used chemical and biological weapons on the armies of Iran (and vice versa), which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000,000 soldiers and civilians.

Iraq also "tested" its chemical weaponry on the northern Kurds (subjects of its own government and country), resulting in the deaths of over 5000 men women and children (all civilian).

In 1990, Iraq sent nearly its entire airforce to Iran (a hated enemy), rather than have it destroyed by the coalition. At the time Iraq was according to Janes, the fourth largest and powerful standing army on earth.

From 1991 to the present day, coalition soldiers of the first Gulf war, continue to suffer from a strange malady called Gulf War Syndrome.

From 1992 to 9/11/2001, the US suffered five terrorist attacks on its soil, each giving rise to even greater and bolder attacks - 1993 Twin towers bomding, two emabassies, The USS Cole in Yemen, and the Twin Towers' destruction.

During this time the president of the US and presiding branches did nothing to stop this escalating violence. His name was Clinton.

Eight months after his replacement took office (Bush), the twin towers came down, and the new change in our governement said this was enough.

The coalition forces of the second part of this Gulf War did in weeks, what other military forces could not do in years (vanquish two terrorist regimes, restore some semblance of order, and give the people of those lands better living conditions than before the war.

1. Russia could not defeat Aphganistan based regime.

2. Iran could not defeat Iraq based regime.

3. The coalition did both.

If oil was what the United States was soley interested in, then it would have been much easier to just go to the UN and get the sanctions lifted from Iraqi oil, and to hell with the people or the region.

In World War II, after the war was declared over, several thousand AMERICAN TROOPS lost their lives, over the course of a couple of years while trying to bring some semblance of order to the countries of Germany and Japan. How? Terroist attacks, ambushes, booby traps and home made bombs. Who were the terroists? German nationals, Japanese nationals, and foriegn insurgents who did not want change, or who had other ideas about who should be the new power in the area.

In 1789, there was a vote in the US Congress to determine what the United State's official language would be. English beat out Dutch-German, by one vote.

The United States is not a democracy; rather a federal republic based on democratic principles. A true democracy would amount to MOB RULE. Its origins can be found in the Athenian form of government, Roman republic, British common law, and as a spicy touch - anarchy or self reliance. An excellent reference for this is a book called "The Federalist Papers".

When asked by the new "citizens" of the United States what form of government do we have (they had no clue, some expected a monarchy), Benjamen Franklin is quoted as saying "a federal republic...if you can keep it." This blazed the trail for ensuring the "people" of the nation becoming educated, literate and questioning.

The United States fought the most vicious civil war in known history. Europe could not believe the ferocity at which brother could battle brother over, political, economic and morale concepts. To a color blind individual, the uniforms were so similar he would not have been able to differentiate between the two.

The United States was dragged kicking and screaming into world politics by our neighbors across the pond. We were generally an "isolationist nation" until World War II.

The United States mentality has not changed in over 400 years, we still believe in doing it ourselves, not asking for hand outs, would rather die than give in, and have a stubborn streak as long as the Milky Way.

We are reluctant to step into the fray, and once in, reluctant to walk away. The United States was made in its parents' collective image, and the parents of the United States is the world.

Nothing new under the Sun folks.

Amen, this in my opinion is freaking genius.

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

]Of course, no one is saying that a democracy should be a 'democrazy' or anarchy in all its most extreme variations. Democracy before anything else is founded upon the rule of law. The distinction between a true democracy amounting to MOB RULE and a government founded upon democratic principles is, I think, an example of a straw man.

Well yes but it is true that the united states in a republic. It is not a true democracy but many people who live in the country wouldn't know it. (my 8th Grade English teacher for one). However the people do choose those who represent them so it is in fact a democratic republic. And that is what we will be bringing to Iraq I'd say that it is near impossible to have a democracy run anything other than a group no larger than 200-300 people. assuming all people can vote.

__________________________________________________ ________________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Susma Rio Sep]

JJM writes:

Well yes but it is true that the united states in a republic. It is not a true democracy but many people who live in the country wouldn't know it. (my 8th Grade English teacher for one). However the people do choose those who represent them so it is in fact a democratic republic. And that is what we will be bringing to Iraq I'd say that it is near impossible to have a democracy run anything other than a group no larger than 200-300 people. assuming all people can vote.

I beg to disagree with your assertion that the U.S. is not a true democracy though a republic.

Maybe you have a point there about what a true democracy should be, which the U.S. is not. May I respectfully then learn from you what a true democracy is?

I will not be bothered so much that the democracy the U.S. will bring to Iraq will be to its own image, with all the boils and calluses of U.S. style democracy, under its tutelage and patronage and of course for its own advantage, which just the same I think is the best option of extant possible but less than optimal choices.

But I must commend you for your concern about the lot of the Iraqi peoples who have to undergo a myriad traumas to get them into the modern secular world of today's democracy as practiced in the U.S. and in the Western world.

I wonder if you can give me a list of the countries today that do not have the label "Republic" in their official designation. My suspicion is that every country today calls itself a republic, to indicate that true to the original ideal of a republic in the days of the ancient Romans to mean that government is a matter of everyone's concern and entitlement, not of a limited group.

Correct me then if I am wrong: what to the Romans was called a republic, to the Greeks was called a democracy.

Susma Rio Sep

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

JJM writes:



I beg to disagree with your assertion that the U.S. is not a true democracy though a republic.

Maybe you have a point there about what a true democracy should be, which the U.S. is not. May I respectfully then learn from you what a true democracy is?

I will not be bothered so much that the democracy the U.S. will bring to Iraq will be to its own image, with all the boils and calluses of U.S. style democracy, under its tutelage and patronage and of course for its own advantage, which just the same I think is the best option of extant possible but less than optimal choices.

But I must commend you for your concern about the lot of the Iraqi peoples who have to undergo a myriad traumas to get them into the modern secular world of today's democracy as practiced in the U.S. and in the Western world.

I wonder if you can give me a list of the countries today that do not have the label "Republic" in their official designation. My suspicion is that every country today calls itself a republic, to indicate that true to the original ideal of a republic in the days of the ancient Romans to mean that government is a matter of everyone's concern and entitlement, not of a limited group.

Correct me then if I am wrong: what to the Romans was called a republic, to the Greeks was called a democracy.

Susma Rio Sep

From my research, I opine that a true democracy is the concept of one person, one vote, majority rules. Each person is his/her own representitive. This, I think works well in a small town or village, of similar minded people. I don't think it would do well in a nation such as the United States with all its diverseness, and with 187 million eligible voters.

In theory at least a republic based on democratic principles is a complicated form of government, requiring a very learned citizenry who must remain involved and vigilant about who they elect as their representatives. To lose sight and interest in the governemental bodies (elected officials' actions and beliefs), is to give up the right to mold their own government policies, and to in fact give the elected representatives "carte blanche" to do as they please. This is why citizen participation and observation is paramount to maintaining a clean governing body.

Canada used to be called a dominion/commonwealth, as well as Australia and New Zealand. I do not believe they call themselves republics at this time. Several states in the US still call themselves commonwealths, though Texas is a republic. Great Britian does not call itself a republic, nor does Iceland, Greenland, Finnland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, Israel. (I could be wrong, and may have missed something, but as far as I've found I am correct).

The Greeks had a democracy the relied heavily on the vote of its citizens. Wherein the Romans did not, and instead relied on regional representatives to cover the interests of their respective regions within the senate. The Ceasar was not elected for the majority of Rome's existence, and was considered a decendent of the Gods.

That covers the executive and legislative branches of the US based form of governement.

The British judicial concept of common law, rounds out the origins of the US Judicial branch.

The uniqueness of the American form of government (in theory) is in the three branches of government acting as checks and balances on each other. Any two can override a third, if a problem arises. And if the people are dissatisfied with the government as a whole, they have the right to liquidate and start again. That is a truly democratic concept.

Californians expressed this right in the recall of the Governor named G. Davis a few months ago. In fact the established body of representativs of the government of California were stunned and dismayed that their power base could be wiped out by the simple vote of the people, proving that the people are the strongest political entity in existence, when it comes down to brass tacks.

Our representatives are not rulers...they are public servants of the highest order. If they fail in their service, the people they represent, they can be called home.

With power comes responsibilty and accountability, failure to live up to those expectations can and does compel the people to step in and exercise their right to choose...

It is an exciting time to be alive folks!

[Baud]

Despite the fact that there are a wide number of very correct things in Quahom1's message, I have to object to the comparison in the following paragraph.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Things to think about:
The coalition forces of the second part of this Gulf War did in weeks, what other military forces could not do in years (vanquish two terrorist regimes, restore some semblance of order, and give the people of those lands better living conditions than before the war.

1. Russia could not defeat Aphganistan based regime.

2. Iran could not defeat Iraq based regime.

3. The coalition did both.

Without in any way meaning to diminish the value of the military action of the coalition forces, I think that this is really comaring apples with pears.

1. The USSR did actually defeat the Afghan regime and replace it with one that was just a puppet. The fact is that the Afghan population continued to fight the USSR by ambush and guerilla, much like what is currently happening in Iraq, only with more intensity because the soviet forces were quite widely viewed as an invading force (which is not the case of the coalition forces).

2. The purpose of Iran was not to defeat the Iraq regime. Actually Iraq attacked Iran first. Iran was at that time a country recovering from revolution and wrecked by internal turmoil, and Iraq was then recognized as having one of the strongest armed forces in the Middle-East. The purpose of Iran in its war with Iraq was to keep the Iraqis out.

3. The coalition did both, and did it quite well. However, the situation in Afghanistan was quite different: the Taliban regime was never fully in control of the whole Afghan territory, an dthere was an organized armed opposition that the coalition could rely on. Also, the Taliban regime had lost popular support with Afghans, and the population was certainly more willing to accept coalitions forces than soviet invaders. Also, the situation in Iraq was very different. The Iraqi armed forces had been depleted during the war with Iran, and even more so during the first Gulf War. Iraq had been subject to economic sanctions for more than ten years. Opposing it was not an (at the time) unstable and internationally shunned regime such as Iran, but a coalition led by the strongest and most modern state and military in the world.

Again, I do not mean to demean the military actions of the coalition, but there is really not much comparison that can meaningfully be done between the events mentioned above.

Baud

[Baud]

Democracy is very difficult to define. Political scientists and philosophers have been trying to do this for years. It is usually acknowledged that the word refers to two things: the current representative political regimes (in this case, this includes the US), and the philosophical ideal of representation or government by the people.

A republic is a form of government (usually referred to as presidential regime), like is a representative monarchy (a lits of which Quahom1 included in his post - but he forgot Belgium ! ), or a dictatorship (authoritarian/totalitarian regime). Some of them are democratic, some others obviously not.

In effect, what you are saying is that a republic is not meeting the philosophical concept of democracy. This is correct in so far as this concept could be clearly defined. The "one person, one vote" concept is actually fairly recent. It entered the US legal system in 1964 only (Reynolds v. Sims). Contrary to popular belief, it was not really applied in the Greek cities, where democracy usually meant "one citizen, one vote". Women, slaves and other non-citizens did not vote. To be a citizen, one very often had to own sufficient property, which of course excluded the poor from representation.

Baud

[Susma Rio Sep]

Bravo, bravo, bravo!

Thanks, Quah and Baud.

Before your learning and insights I feel most abashed and lost.

Thanks.

Susma Rio Sep

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Baud

Democracy is very difficult to define. Political scientists and philosophers have been trying to do this for years. It is usually acknowledged that the word refers to two things: the current representative political regimes (in this case, this includes the US), and the philosophical ideal of representation or government by the people.

A republic is a form of government (usually referred to as presidential regime), like is a representative monarchy (a lits of which Quahom1 included in his post - but he forgot Belgium ! ), or a dictatorship (authoritarian/totalitarian regime). Some of them are democratic, some others obviously not.

In effect, what you are saying is that a republic is not meeting the philosophical concept of democracy. This is correct in so far as this concept could be clearly defined. The "one person, one vote" concept is actually fairly recent. It entered the US legal system in 1964 only (Reynolds v. Sims). Contrary to popular belief, it was not really applied in the Greek cities, where democracy usually meant "one citizen, one vote". Women, slaves and other non-citizens did not vote. To be a citizen, one very often had to own sufficient property, which of course excluded the poor from representation.

Baud

Touche Baud. You are correct that Iran did not instigate the 8 year war, but they sure as hell tried to finish it (I would have too). I did forget Belgium, and Luxembourg (now that I think about it), as well as the Vatican and Malta.

Susma, we're just burning out brain cells on a weekend, but the sentiment is appreciated.

Democracy (in the United States), is an intermittent thing. In my own home, it can be a democracy one day and a dictatorship/heiarchy the next...

My neighborhood runs more or less on democratic concensus, as well as my local town, but the county runs on a republic based concept. The state combines the two. Very flexible. Washington DC, is a conumdrum of Democracy, Republic, and anarchy (I go to work there every day). From the outside point of view it is controled chaos, and disgusting to the average American. There are no blurred lines, it is rich and poor, with no middle class.

But it is not a microcosim of the country at large. It is unique. Hell it's not even a state (hence no representation in the Federal government).

Overdose made a series of comments about concerns of Iraq successfully incorporating democracy into its fabric (paraphrased), but I submit that democracy is already running alive and well in Iraq (in the interimn government). They are arguing, jockeying for position, staging walkouts, comprimising and ...talking...instead of fighting!

The Federalist Papers point out quite succinctly that the United States fledgling government was not without squabble, nor was France's new Republic. Sometimes it was a ramshackle roughshod brawl!

Iraq is trying on new shoes, it takes some time to break in the heels...

v/r

Q

[Susma Rio Sep]

Quah writes:

Overdose made a series of comments about concerns of Iraq successfully incorporating democracy into its fabric (paraphrased), but I submit that democracy is already running alive and well in Iraq (in the interimn government). They are arguing, jockeying for position, staging walkouts, comprimising and ...talking...instead of fighting!

Most probably an essential trait of democracy in a land is when the peoples there can talk and do a lot of other things, to decide on the kind of government they want and what they want from their government, except resorting to violent fighting causing physical injuries and deaths and destruction.

Now, if we can just bring those guys who are doing the bombing to join in the talking, then it would just be fine; and all the sins of the U.S. are forgiven.

Off the record, what about using sex and the enticement of money to bring them to the talking table. It's a very effective way from the business sectors to get people to do things, like parting with their money. And the U.S. also is #1 in this area. Right? No?

Susma Rio Sep

[Kaspar]

I don't wish to offend any americans just something to think about.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Things to think about:

From 1980 to 1988, Iraq used chemical and biological weapons on the armies of Iran (and vice versa), which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000,000 soldiers and civilians.

Iraq also "tested" its chemical weaponry on the northern Kurds (subjects of its own government and country), resulting in the deaths of over 5000 men women and children (all civilian).

In 1990, Iraq sent nearly its entire airforce to Iran (a hated enemy), rather than have it destroyed by the coalition. At the time Iraq was according to Janes, the fourth largest and powerful standing army on earth.

From 1991 to the present day, coalition soldiers of the first Gulf war, continue to suffer from a strange malady called Gulf War Syndrome.

From 1992 to 9/11/2001, the US suffered five terrorist attacks on its soil, each giving rise to even greater and bolder attacks - 1993 Twin towers bomding, two emabassies, The USS Cole in Yemen, and the Twin Towers' destruction.

I agree with these facts which show the many autrocities commited by Saddam Hussein but correct me if I am mistaken but weren't the US and the UK promenant suppliers of Weapons and money to Iraq while he was commiting these crimes? Also why didn't the US, 12 years ago when it fought the 1st Gulf War get Saddam out of Power?

I think there is a stong resemblance between the support the US gave Saddam when he was commiting acts of genecide against his own people and the support the US gave General Pinocet who as we now know have commited war crimes.

Lets be realistic, does Iraq have huge huge Oil Reserves? Yes

Is Oil George Bushs' biggest cash maker? Yes.

I am not suggesting he went to War on Iraq just to get more Oil, (even though, considering the profits it sounds convincing to alot of people) simply It can't be ignored as a motive.

If we're really going to talk about removing a terrorist threat to make the world a safer place then what about North Korea? We know for a fact that it has WMD (which we didn't in the War on Iraq) and it is governed by a mental dictator. Wait one things missing...Oil.

If you want to find out about American Terrorism visit http://www.antiterroristas.cu

I agree that Saddam Hussein is an very cruel dictator who's removal, anyone with any sense would have supported, but the point is, What do the people of the middle east think? What does Iraq think about its liberation? Well of course there will be millions of Iraqis who wholeheartedly rejoice but it must be seen in the context of Palestine.

The Arab World watch by as Israel defy another resolution from the UN, and observe how the US pour money into Israel whatever the situation. To them Israel is out of control and can do whatever it wants. The western world hasn't managed to protect the Palestinians. Arabs see the War on Terror as two faced. Conclusively, However the War in Iraq turns out one big difference between now and before the War on Terror is that Muslims across the world feel alienated which is breaking the Religions and people apart.

Peace

[I, Brian]

Hi Kaspar, and welcome to CR - glad to see you were finally able to sign in. And interesting points, too.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Kaspar

I don't wish to offend any americans just something to think about.


I agree with these facts which show the many autrocities commited by Saddam Hussein but correct me if I am mistaken but weren't the US and the UK promenant suppliers of Weapons and money to Iraq while he was commiting these crimes? Also why didn't the US, 12 years ago when it fought the 1st Gulf War get Saddam out of Power?

I think there is a stong resemblance between the support the US gave Saddam when he was commiting acts of genecide against his own people and the support the US gave General Pinocet who as we now know have commited war crimes.

Lets be realistic, does Iraq have huge huge Oil Reserves? Yes

Is Oil George Bushs' biggest cash maker? Yes.

I am not suggesting he went to War on Iraq just to get more Oil, (even though, considering the profits it sounds convincing to alot of people) simply It can't be ignored as a motive.

If we're really going to talk about removing a terrorist threat to make the world a safer place then what about North Korea? We know for a fact that it has WMD (which we didn't in the War on Iraq) and it is governed by a mental dictator. Wait one things missing...Oil.

If you want to find out about American Terrorism visit http://www.antiterroristas.cu

I agree that Saddam Hussein is an very cruel dictator who's removal, anyone with any sense would have supported, but the point is, What do the people of the middle east think? What does Iraq think about its liberation? Well of course there will be millions of Iraqis who wholeheartedly rejoice but it must be seen in the context of Palestine.

The Arab World watch by as Israel defy another resolution from the UN, and observe how the US pour money into Israel whatever the situation. To them Israel is out of control and can do whatever it wants. The western world hasn't managed to protect the Palestinians. Arabs see the War on Terror as two faced. Conclusively, However the War in Iraq turns out one big difference between now and before the War on Terror is that Muslims across the world feel alienated which is breaking the Religions and people apart.

Peace

Welcome Kaspar, and excellent points all. I can't debate you right now without first researching. I will not spout off things without having hard facts to back them up (for and against the United States). But when I viewed the latest beheading of an un-armed American citizen by terrorists who took great pleasure in pointing out that this was for the "Christian Bush"...I realize that this has become a religious war (as far as some terrorists are concerned). That will be their down fall.

Kaspar, I love Arabs. I even married one. But something has got to give, and it will not be the US.

v/r

Q