LOL! Who eats fries? I've been to France on more than one occasion. Nice scenery, wonderful museums, that's about it.

End of Hijack.

Re: Why I hate war in Iraq.
 

Assuming that the first post of this thread was in English, and that's a rather large assumption, I'll try to understand it and respond.

First, no war has ever been fought for one reason.

I understood that before we went to war, that it was necessary, not because of WMD, but because of geopolitics. There are five nations in the Middle East that are heavily tied to terrorism, either through direct state support, through the implicit, or explicit support of madrasas, and/or state run media that demagogues the U.S. (and Israel) for everything including pot-holes and broken street lights. These nations are Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Iraq borders all of these nations except for Egypt, and Egypt's government is sufficiently malleable as to be influenced by a change in the political makeup of the region. The geopolitical strategy of the U.S. is bold; it is to remake the region. In many ways 2003 is like the U.S. in Europe in the 1940s compressed into a single year; The U.S. fought WWII and then implemented the Marshall Plan as a prelude to the Cold War.

Iraq was also special in another way: it was the only regime in the Middle East that was genocidal. In the first week of March of this year, Eli Weisel, the Nobel Peace Prize winning holocaust survivor met with President Bush and urged him to remove the Iraqi regime. There was a moral imperative that was absolute and irrefutable, by all without an axe to grind, to remove the Baathist regime. Any argument made to avoid war because of pacifism, when that war is directed against a genocidal regime, is both intellectually and morally dishonest. This line of thinking was been well established, and accepted, in the wake of the Holocaust. A poignant fact is that fewer Iraqis will have died in 2003 due to the combined effects of murder from the Iraqi government and collateral damage due to the war, than were murdered by the Iraqi government in 2002. Fewer by more than an order of a magnitude.

Due to the oppressive nature of Nazi Germany, General Eisenhower was unable to obtain accurate information about the state of German society, politics, and military capability. The reason why he was so cautious about advancing to Germany, and why the Soviet Union was able to capture Eastern Germany, is that the German propaganda machine was perpetuating a fallacy that there were several divisions of the German Army holed up in the Swiss Alps ready to attack the advancing allied armies. Due to the oppressive nature of Baathist Iraq, the current U.S. administration was unable to obtain accurate information about the state of Iraqi society, politics, and military capability. To criticize the Bush administration for inaccurate information is disingenuous. No war can ever be prosecuted with full knowledge of the opposition. It was simply not known that the current obstacles would exist.

The respect of Iraqi sovereignty is very real, but strictly in the context of a democratic regime. There can not be elections right now for two important reasons. The first has to do with the only viable form of democracy for a nation as diverse as Iraq. Iraq can not survive under a democracy with a powerful presidency. It really needs a parliamentary form of government. There can be no fair elections of a parliamentary government until a census is held. A census has not been taken in Iraq in decades. This will take several months to execute. The second reason that Iraq can not hold immediate elections is that there has not yet been established a consensus driven constitution. This will also take several months, at least. Unlike the Constitution of the United States, most (if not all) constitutions created for democratic nations in the post WWII era are comparatively long documents, and very technical. This needs to be done, and done right.

Oh, and about that WMD argument. That was not made for the American People. President Bush felt indebted to Tony Blair for his staunch support. The only viable way to obtain support in the pre-war political climate in the U.K. was to go through the U.N. The only viable argument with the U.N. was to use the WMD argument. It was not known that France would lie to Secretary Powell about understanding the repercussions of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. It was also not known that French President Chirac was adamant about reordering the international hegemonic structure, or that France's strong economic ties with a certain genocidal regime would rear its ugly head. Vichy France lives.

The real goal of this war is to stop state sponsored terrorism, and the two primary factors in creating recruits for terrorist networks; madrasas and state-controlled Middle Eastern media.

The U.S. executed the fastest military victory in history. Now some people want the transition to a democracy to happen in three weeks as well. That is patently absurd. Patience is needed, and anyone who can lucidly view current events in a historical context will give the U.S. Government that.

War is an extension of international relation. We can say, there are brave man and women. But in the final analysis, war is a statement, and the US has made a statement.

All this about human rights and democracy is a method to sell the war to the general public. You know, "We will spread democracy." Which sounds like the British version of the "White Man's Burden." It's all about geopolitics. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is about geopolitics, but to say "nothing more, nothing less" denies the existance of motivation, and that makes your statement false. Also to misunderstand the motivation to spread democracy, is to completely misunderstand wht the Bush administration is doing what it is doing.

This is purely 9-11 related. The Middle East needs to be changed, or there will be nuclear weapons detonated on American Soil in my life. That is especially disturbing because I live in Manhattan, and I live a short walk from the former World Trade Center. The motivation of the Bush administration to spread democracy is not born out "a white man's burden", which was a rather flippant and ignorant statement, but because there is no other credible means to transform the Middle East.

It is simply not acceptable to allow madrasas to continue to teach hate towards any nation, and to teach that dieing through a "jihad" against those nations is the most noble act one can commit.

It is no longer acceptable to broadcast that the failures of Middle Eastern societies are due to "U.S. Imperialism", and not due to the failures of Middle Eastern governments, especially when such notions of American imperialism are quickly watered down by the successes of other American allies like South Korea, Taiwan, etc.

The United States will no longer tolerate breeding grounds for terrorism. This means little to people who live on a different part of the planet. I lived by the ruins as the fires burned for months. I lived with that smell in the air for months; a smell of chemical and electrical fire that would not go away. President Bush visited that site, and like all who did, he was changed. Do not underestimate the power of such an experience on a person's world view. Do not underestimate how experiencing such a horror can effect the resolve of a leader. To do so is sheer naïveté.

War is not necessarily an extension of "international relation (sic)." Civil wars are not. But more relevantly, war has historically been born out of either the competition for economic resouces, or driven by a fanatical devotion to an ideology.

This war came to America. The US did not cause the decline in Arabian culture that bred contempt for European culture, and specifically for the European Enlightenment (which actually has its roots in Arabian philosophy.) That decline started centuries before the US existed. The US did not cause the creation of Wahabism; that cult came into being decades bofore the American Revolutionary War.

No, this war is not the fault of the US. Despite what so many non-American media sources like to broadcast. The enemy is clear, and it won't go away unless the root causes of the enemy are eradicated.

These societies need to be transformed. Period. Democracy is the most convenient vehicle to facilitate this change. This is American national defense, make no mistake about it. Bumper sticker slogans may disagree, but they can not disprove a truth. President Bush is resolved to not let a repeat of 9-11 happen again. Judging by the fact that Al Qaeda is now targeting Muslims in the Middle East, it looks like President Bush is on the right track.

The Iraq war has nothing to with 9-11. I'm sure you've probably read AEI paper about taking Saddam Hussein out. AEI staff are now also part of the Bush administration. Reform can not be from the outside. My sister worked across the streed from WTC, and I've seen many to many death in my life.

I too have seen death. I've been to Rwanda, DRC, Angola, Mozambique, and I've personally seen what war does. And these war was a proxy war between the so called "West" and the "Communist." There can never be reform being pushed from the outside. The local will never accept that reform. It must be from the inside. Also, Bush has talked about freedom, democracy, and human rights, well, he must also walk the walk by no longer supporting dictators such as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan who is known to use the "War on Terror" to silent his opposition. We are stepping back, not forward as a war. In the past, human rights abuses were justified to fight the communist. Now, it's justified to fight terror. Then there is sending of suspects, many guilty by associaton such as MAher Arar, to countries which in one hand the adminstration critized (Syria) but then they gladly let them torture people. I can tell you that many people are cynical not because of words, but actions. Democracy is good, but it must be from the people, and not by guns. Democracy by guns are not sustainble. Democracy from the people are.

Yes, Iraqi people did not want reform. They wanted to face executions, torture, rape, etc. on a daily basis. Also as Sean Penn says, who are we to tell them what's good for them? In Iraqi culture, executions, torture, and rape are good things.

Sometimes those on the inside are powerless.
Change has taken place in Iraq, why isn't there a large-scale popular movement to bring back Saddam?
Maybe the Kurds should accept their fate - to die by chemical weapons (which don't exist and never happened).

And now the people in Iran are powerless as a violent theocracy kills and oppresses. What does the UN do? Not much I guess. The Nuclear inspectors publish a report on clear evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weaponry, but under the influence of France and Germany, the new report will not punish them for this. So what if exotic lasers are being used, so what if Iran is oil rich and has absolutely not one incentive to pursure nuclear energy, so what if nuclear facilities for 15 years were not revealed. This isn't a case of what exists and doesn't exist but one of greed by European exploiters, a story of a continent that is taking joy at rubbing their thumbs in American eyes, a story of a continent so irrelevant to the future that they are grasping in every way possible to become relevant.

-Rudey
--I guess people on the inside don't want change...you see when they bang their own heads against the walls of Iranian prisons, they're just saying "WE DON'T WANT CHANGE".

Re: Re: Why I hate war in Iraq.
 

Right on!!! :)

Uhm, that is incorrect good sir. The IAEA is part of the UN, hence the UN is doing something. The report has found no evidence of a secret atomic weapons programme (MSNBC 20 Nov 2003). The it wasn't under the influence of only France and Germany, but also Russian and England. Which mean they see and opening in negotiation, which has worked so far. Diplomacy at its finest is what you are seeing here. The trios strategy is not to corner the Iranian reformist government which would fall very well in the right wing factions hand. Number one rule of negotiation is to always leave the other side choices. This is what England, Germany, and France has done.

You've only mention the negative in your post. Here are positive development. With the Iranian government agreeing to more checks by the IAEA, it signals that the reformist in the government has won some of the battle. Already, the Iranian has agreed to sign more additional protocol to the NPT to allow for wider, unannounced inspections. ElBaradei himself has said that there is no evidence that Iran has any secret nuclear programs.

El Baradei did not say there is no evidence but not sufficient evidence. When pushed by Powell and the U.S. he simply replied "I cannot verify intentions".

Why was there a secret nuclear program for so long? Well how about we just forget about that and forget about a history of deception and just concentrate on this country completly doing an about-face. Let's just forget that Iran only revealed this much after overwhelming pressure from all sides.

And I guess we should forget that a treaty was broken. We should let countries know it's ok for you to create nuclear weaponry in private. Hey North Korea is in complete breach of it, but let's just show the world the U.N. is useless...completely and utterly.

The reformists in the government have won no battle. What battle was won? Who pursued this battle and when? You also totally ignored the comments on the people of Iraq, the Kurds, the students rounded up daily in Iran, the journalist who ends up in an Iranian prison and comes out dead with massive head trauma because, as the Iranians claim, he just banged his own head against the wall. None of them wanted change. Let's also forget that change was imposed on the Japanese and the Balkans unlike any other.

The countries you've mentioned have been the biggest exploiters of Iran - including Britain.

I'm not saying disregard the positive and disregard diplomacy. There should be rewards...a carrot if you will for following the rule but the U.N. must be able to show that it can also carry a stick.

-Rudey

Actually I do :)

Re: :( I feel uncomfortable
 

LOL @ you guy, you need to get many things straight about your knowledge of history.


First, I oppose the war to a certain extent but I feel that the U.S. had to step in as to qwell the horror that Saddam was projecting onto his people.

I think it's safe to say that "allied forces" were infact nearly, if not, were losing until the U.S. decided to step in. And our country was hiding? Nah, how about we didn't want to be the world police, I mean after all, look at the hatred coming from the rest of the world for our occupation of Iraq. Or maybe we didn't want to step in after the first WW. I doubt there was much of that when we decided to enter WWII. It had nothing to do with vast German populations in the U.S. Furthermore, quite a few German citizens living in the U.S. decided to answer the call from Germany and go back to the motherland to take up arms agains the so-called "Allies." (My father's family had issues with this, my great-grandfather actually went back with some of his brothers, oddly enough his son, my grandfather was a solider for the U.S.)

As for your argument regarding the allies holding Germany and Japan at bay until the U.S. entered the war, I say this to you: Germany was taking over Europe, they basically walked into France, they were bombing the U.K. on a daily basis, their occupation spread rapidly which took control of many countries and it was on the verge of threatening occupation of the former Soviet Union. So you mean to tell me that was the plan? That's how the allies kept Hitler at bay, by allowing him to conquer most of Europe? By allowing him to occupy certain countries with almost no resistance at all?

When your government, or any other government that borrowed money from the U.S. in order to rebuild after WWII decides to pay us back, hell, even decides to pay us back the INTEREST that we are owed on these loans, then maybe we'll have something to talk about.

Re: Re: :( I feel uncomfortable
 

LOL!

Yes the first post was in English. Next time I'll try to translate into asshole, so you can understand it better.

Deutsch sprechen, Willhelm!

I've never heard anything about France paying the U.S. government back let alone the interest on the loans.

Of course they couldn't beat the Nazis alone but they had one hell of a force to contribute not only to fighting the Japanese but the Germans as well.