I am lovin this. After a respectful exchange between myself and tes1701, I had decided not to enter the debate.

But after reading some of your exchanges, I thought "hey, why not?" Special thanks to michaelj. He seems to have the enthusiasm and patience that I sometimes feel that I've lost, due to the constant onslaughts from the "objective" media.

I do believe it's important, for the purposes of intelligent discussion, to stick to specific terms of the debate.

There are a couple things I'd like to point out:

1. Elementary morality holds that you be primarily concerned with your own behaviour. Implicitly, that means that you can not logically hold another person up to standards that you are not willing to follow yourself.

Thus when a person makes a point about the shockingly brutal history of U.S. foreign policy, it is not a logical defence to say "Yeah....well...country 'X' is worse!"

2. "Anti-Americanism". I hate that term. It is so utterly ridiculous. If they're remained a true democratic culture on this continent that we would all laugh at those who use the term. The phrase suggests that there exists some monolithic opinion, culture, value-system and interest that all Americans conform to. It is a term rooted in nationalism (which is always very, very dangerous) that offends the principles upon which a democracy is supposed to be founded.

During the 50s, the Stalinist regime regarded being "anti-Soviet" as one of the greatest crimes. It's a totalitarian word....stop using it.

3. "War on Terror" -- What exactly is terrorism? If you take the definition used by U.S. Federal laws, I think you'll have a good idea.

The next step is to apply the term UNIVERSALLY. That includes the West's (not just the U.S., though it provides the clearest examples) history of using it to further the objectives of the elites who own (and thus run) the country.

Of course, most of us sleep better if we use the term in its propagandistic incarnation, which means "terrorism" is what they do, and "retaliation" or "pre-emptive self-defence" is what we do.

One final question:
I read on one of the posts a declaration by the author that he (or she) would support their country, even if the war is wrong.

What has happened to a "government of the people" YOU are your country. Not a flag, not a song, not a President."

If you are willing to trade true democratic principles, due process, and your own constitution for the sake of loving your country, then you destroy everything there is about your country that is worthy of your adoration.

Thus, now we can ask why the administration wants to attack Iraq.

It's certainly not about humanitarian principles.

It's certainly not about safeguarding the citizens of an empire so utterly dominant that no state could pose a threat to it.

It's certainly not about upholding respect for international law.

It's certainly not about "terrorism".

So what is it about? I think we all know. Some of us are just too afraid to think that governments that we pay taxes to, that talk endlessly about "freedom" and "democracy", are willing and capable of killing, destroying and undermining growth, development and human rights for no other reason that to increase our already bloated piece of the pie.

I know its hard to think that we're being lied to. But we are.

I'll close with a quote that I rather enjoy:

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of the conscience-soothing fallacies, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutaions of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
-Mark Twain

stop the sanctions, stop the bombing (oh yes it occurs every week under the pretext of "no-fly zones").

Ideaology aside...these are human beings. They are dying, and we're funding it.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

War on Iraq apparently will lead to gay bashing and hurt Saddam's commitment to female empowerement. Plus 9/11's real victims, female New York Times op-ed collumnists.

Here they praise Saddam's commitment to female empowerement which will be hurt by overthrowing him...

"6. Iraq has historically given women's education top priority. With the onslaught of economic hardships formal and informal education has suffered. A full-fledged war
will only be MORE destructive to women's education."

That war will apparently lead to gay bashing...

"During times of war, stigmatized populations of women,gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, immigrants, non-English speakers or the disabled become more vulnerable. War on Iraq will encourage discrimination, racism and hate. We will not tolerate racism against Women of Color and Third World
Women!"

Apparently war will also lead to domestic violence and rape in the US...

"7. War places a priority on the use of armed violence and arbitrary power. This authority seeps into all of society's institutions, reinforcing privileges of the powerful and
promoting exploitation. These cultural abuses of women's bodies promote rape, domestic violence and other forms of
direct physical VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN."

And apparently war will lead to the erosion of our existing peacefull and non-violent culture...

"8. War on Iraq will further our militarized culture of aggression. This cultural behavior exposes women and girls to an increase of systematic sexual, psychological and economic violence within the United States AND globally."

The site also goes on to compare US Soldiers to Serbian gang rapists...

"Militarism increases violence against women. In times of war, military-sponsored rape becomes commonplace. Rape is frequently used as a tool to further 'ethnic cleansing.' In Bosnia-Herzegovina, an estimated 20,000 women and girls were raped by the Serbian military in the early 1990's. The rapes were committed to terrorize the population and eliminate Muslims from the region by impregnating women and forcing them to bear Serbian children. The climate of militarism also easily gives way to domestic violence. In the summer of 2002, four wives of U.S. military officers, all stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were killed by their husbands. Three of the four officers had recently returned to the country after being deployed to Afghanistan as special operations soldiers. It is suspected that these women were victims of domestic violence long before their murder, but could not or did not choose to obtain help."

And this one is just downright bizarre, war apparently also reduces the number of female op-ed collumnists... apparently female op-ed collumnists were the forgotten victims of September 11th.

"Militarism silences women. During war, the first voices to be eliminated from the public sphere are those belonging to women. According to a study conducted by Fairness and Accuracy in Media, in the month following September 11, women were outnumbered by 10 to 1 on op-ed pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today."

And apparently war also hurts Abortion rights...

"Militarism encourages a climate hostile to choice. Militarism shifts the nation's priorities toward increased support for military and defense programs. This undercuts issues like gender equity and reproductive choice, thus discouraging citizens from considering such social concerns when voting. Candidates with the staunchest support for war are usually the most adamantly opposed to reproductive freedom; hence, anti-choice politicians win wartime elections and continually draft and introduce anti-choice legislation."

All sane and rational reasons not to go to war...in Bizarro World.


---

"Predators of the 21st century will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons...There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
President Clinton

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

About 80% of the european people opposes a war against Iraq, at least now and without a UN resolution.

So who are these Europeans? Why don't they share the american enthusiasm for war?

Europe had to make a lot of bitter experience before it could live in democracy and freedom after 1989:

-The division of the continent into the west and east in the Cold War
-Two world wars with a giant number of victims and destruction (from european perspective, you could see them as european civil wars)
-all forms of modern dictatorship and/or old forms of tyranney you could imagine

Though Europe developed the ideas of democracy and the ideals of the enlighment, these ideas didn't succed from the beginning, the peoples had to fight hard for them.
For them it was very difficult and dangerous to fight for their freedom, because they lived in strongly populated, well organised monarchies, in the centre of the power of the tyrants.

At the same time as the USA was born, France had a revolution to win freedom and democracy.
From then on, Europe's history had been a struggle between the new ideals of democracy and the forces of tyranney in any incarnation, old monarchy or reactionary fascism or totalitarian communism.

Our fight for democracy has ever taken place in our own countries first, against those who denied it.

We have learned that when democracy is established once, it can easily be taken away again.

And we have learned about the weapons of those who drove our continent into two world wars: It was nationalism and blind patriotism that was played out against democracy.

In 1933, Hitler abused the terrorist attack of a single lunatic against the German parliament to declare war against the "communist and jewish terrorism".
The newspapers in the highly patriotic country didn't need any further reasons: They printed the flag on page one and joined that fight.
The average bourgeous German didn't even realise that all the actions Hitler took lead to a slow abolishment of democracy, until it was obvious. But then it was too late.

If the German people had just been less blind of patriotism, the following catastrophy would have been evaded.

Only with the help of our american friends, the western part of Europe could escape the fate of fascist tyranney and we could stand against the communist threat from the east, until entire Europe became democratic after 1990.

But now, we are remarking differences to our american friends:
While we have experienced what 'war' on our own territory really means, you had never a war in which US cicilians were involved. Thatfore, we are more sceptical towards war in general. We think that every single chance to avoid war must be used, before we would accept that method.
When there is a war, not only the ´bad guys suffer, but everybody.

And we know that "evil" lies not only outside your country: It lies in everybody of us and under certain circumstances, it could win you. Almost all evildoers had the best intentions first.
Thatfore, we are more critical towards those in power who easily play with the live and the freedom of millions.


For you, it's all that easy: You are "good", you have ever been, and all these nasty guys outside your country are "bad".
"War" is a thing where you are shipped into another country and fight, while at least your wive and children are safe at home.

But war is no matter of "good and evil". Everybody will suffer.


We here in Europe don't understand Bush's division of the world into two parts: Those who follow your orders and fight, and those who are your enemies.
We don't understand the division of the world into good and evil.

The international organisations like the UN, the NATO and the EU were established after having learned one lesson from history: We have to work together and cooperate instead of proudly judging the other.
Great US presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt shared that belief. All US presidents from then on relied on these organisations.

But now, there is a change. Bush's government now blackmails these organisations: Either they do everything the US want, or they will be irrelevant. No other opinions are tolerated. When they don't obey, they will be insulted in public and economically attacked.

Considering myself as a friend of the USA, I felt like kicked into my face.

Can't you understand our experiences?
Where have your ideals of democracy gone? Isn't it allowed to have different opinions between friends?
Aren't we sharing the same ideals in general?

Why does the current US government restrict the most fundamental rights all in the name of fighting against terrorism? Why do they make up doctrines to attack any other country just out of the blue (preemtive strike)?
Hell, why do they even consider using nuclear weapons first even against countries that don't owe them?!
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AT YOUR'S?


I feel threatened by the US right now. Much more than I feel threatened by the week Saddam guy whose little empire is about to collapse under his ass.

And I tell you why: We know how easily a democracy can be turned into a authoritarian state. And we know how this happens:
All ethical beliefs of the people are disabled by their leaders as they blind them with nationalism, blind patriotism when they are in fear and anger.


I really, really hope for all of us that this will never ever happen to your country.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

Before anyone participates in this, there's a little info they might want to have.

The Lystrata Project is more than a little wacky itself and even has a clause that implies that the US Army will be engaging in some sort of mass rape.

link

"We reject unilateral pre-emptive strikes, war for the sake of profit and dominance, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction including the use of landmines, the targeted rape of women, and the killing and maiming of innocent civilians. For these reasons we specifically reject a war against Iraq."

But the Lystrata Project site states that proceeds will be going to fund EPIC, the Education For Peace in Iraq Center.

EPIC is an organization that does not merely oppose Bush's current plan for a strike against Iraq. It was formed to oppose sanctions on Saddam, period and dates back to the Clinton administration.

EPIC also engaged in activism against the US overthrow of the Taliban. They indeed opposed any military action in response to 9/11 and wanted the US to take only 'diplomatic' measures, that is negotiating with the Taliban.

link

"Bombing Afghanistan will only kill more civilians and lead to further violence, possibly igniting a world war between Islam and the West,” Gustafson cautioned, “and that is precisely what the terrorists want."

They even went so far as to include a sentence in their petition opposing military aid to the Northern Alliance fighting against the Taliban.

link

"Encourage the administration to continue to refrain from arming and/or supporting the Northern Alliance and other destabilizing factions in Afghanistan."

In this sentence they betrayed their real sympathies. To them the Taliban are the 'stable' government of Afghanistan the US should be negotiating with and the Northern Alliance are the 'Destabilizing Faction' out to overthrow them.

I think that we and the people of Afghanistan can be quite gratefull that EPIC failed in its activism then.



---

"Predators of the 21st century will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons...There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
President Clinton

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

Who are these Americans?

I will begin by saying that I am an American. I voted for George W. Bush. I have only traveled outside the United States once. I went to the Bahamas on my honeymoon. There I saw a country whose sole purpose seems to be separating American tourists from their money. I happily obliged them.

Who are these Americans that the rest of the world seems to loath.

·We are a nation of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants. People who came here for a single purpose. To make a better life for themselves and their families.

·We are a nation born out of a violent revolution. We spilled the blood of others to obtain our freedom.

·We set up a system of government that has endured for over 200 years. It is not perfect, but it has stood the test of time. Despite great division and controversy over the 2000 elections, power changed hands from one party to another without a shot fired.

·We have come to the aid of other nations around the world. We have sacrificed our own blood to ensure the freedom of others. We have done so for some of the very nations who now oppose us.

·We send billions of dollars in aid to countries all over the world each year.

In the process we became wealthy and powerful. We don’t understand why so many people dislike us.

We are a pluralistic society. We have many different political ideologies. Those who wish to speak out against our government may do so safe in the knowledge that they will not be killed or imprisoned for doing so.

We picture ourselves as the United Federation of Planets.

Sometimes we behave like Klingons.
Sometimes we behave like Ferengi.
We never behave like Vulcans.

We are not perfect. We make mistakes. I don’t think the proposed military action against Iraq will be one. We have our reasons. I will give you one.

America is the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. We want it to stay that way. Thank you.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

This is from the London Daily Mirror.

Tony Parsons Daily Mirror September 11, 2002
>
>ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting -- the mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there, with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing -nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victimswere truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.
>
>But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as
>America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over
>the last year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA
>in this country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so
>much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it
>seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
>
>America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little overhalf a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?
>
>What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, some unborn.
>
>And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?
>
>These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.
>
>The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.
>
>Remember, remember.
>
>Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.
>
>Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.
>
>Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.
>
>Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.
>
>Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.
>
>So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray?
>
>Pass the Kleenex...
>
>So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.
>
>AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for.
>How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?
>
>When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.
>
>The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.
>
>The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.
>
>But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand -assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.
>
>I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.
>
>Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the
>loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.
>
>To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street.
>
>Save me the orange center, oh mighty one!
>
>Remember, remember, September 11.
>
>One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against
>America.
>
>No, do more than remember. Never forget.

---

-----
"How did you get in here??"
"I'm a locksmith, and... I'm a locksmith".
- "Police Squad"

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

Well they must not... "Lysistrata" is a famous ancient Greek comedy set during the events of the ten-year Peloponnesian War (431-421 BC), a fierce conflict between Athens and Sparta. "Lysistrata" was written by Aristophanes as a protest to the war sometime during the 10 year struggle.

After years of fighting in which both sides were worn down and neither side held a distinct advantage, Athens and Sparta came to a mutual peace treaty... the so-called "50 years of peace," "The Peace of Nicias" (Nicias was an Athenian general and politician).

Well guess what??? Athens was in no mood for piece and within 6 years attacked Sparta. By 413 BC Sparta turned the tables and later,with the help of the Persians, completely crushed Athens. The Spartans tore down the walls of the city, barred Athens from ever having a navy, and installed their own puppet government. Sparta finally had achieved peace.

Sorry Connor, I love you on Enterprise, but before you go thrwoing yourself into the Lysistrata Project, try studying the history of the time... Peace was achieved, but only after bloody conflict, which is evidenced through most of human history. Peace is usually only achieved after one side has been completely decimated....

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

I'm still trying to figure out why people would allow 150 comments to hit an article that doesn't even really need the attention of say 30 comments.

Get on with life.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

It's really too bad that ENTERPRISE can't generate this much discussion on its own merits. It takes an actor doing individualistic things to bring over 150 comments on one item. Not that the subject matter is not worthy. It is. It is just illustrative that the show itself cannot generate this much buzz on a site DEDICATED to Star Trek.

Hmmmmmm.

P.S. All anti-war protesters have the constitutional right to protest....but they don't have the constitutional right to be taken seriously.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

First, let me begin by saying that I am a proud American citizen. I verbally defend this country in its actions most of the time. I believe that this is one of the best governments in the world, and if push came to shove, will defend it with my life. I am also a supporter of America's War on Terrorsism. That said, any mindless person who calls me Anti - American or a Saddam supporter for stating my opinion about being anti war in Iraq will be ignored and and assumed to be ignorant. As you all might know, I rarely pick arguments with ignorant people.

This is not a matter of being Pro War, Anti War, Pro American, or Anti American, It is a matter of right and wrong (or more right and less wrong if you will). Watching Star Trek has taught me a lot over the years. And I know that you do not go to war unless YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

Let me make my position on this clear. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator bent on destroying America. If it is proven that he has the weapons, then he should be dealt with by force if he doesn't willfully give them up. Only if it is proven, and not second before.

I have learned a lot from 9/11. In my opinion, and please, I welcome any argument on this, 9/11 was the result of an oversight made by the the most skillful intelligence officers and spies in the US/UK arsenal. We need to do everything in our power short of violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens by the US constitution, to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again. So, no that the Taliban have been dealt with and the Al Qaeda scattered, and significantly broken up, (By the way, we still have no clue as of to the whereabouts of Bin Laden.) we turn our attention to Iraq. Now this is turning into a dangerous political witch hunt.

I fear not an enemy that poses little to no threat. Yes, If Saddam has the weapons, he poses a great threat. But, we don't know.

I believe that Prez Bush, like his father, has his own agenda, and is using 9/11 as a catalyst to ignite it. This is accomplished by building on America's fear by means of spreading propaganda saying that a ruthless, America hating, madman has WMA's that secretly wants to use against us.
This is all coming from a person who has proven himself time and again to distort the truth for personal gains.

Other notes:
Talk about the US leaving the UN is silliness. The UN was founded to stop nations from doing the kind of thing that Bush is proposing. I believe in the Trek Ideal of working toward a United Planet where war no longer exists. America leaving the UN will set this goal back a great deal. Possibly to the beginning.

Talk about the reason that the Inspectors have not found the WMA's is because Saddam has moved them out of Iraq would be the dumbest intelligence oversight of all time. Especially since they have been under a close eye since this whole mess began. If he do have them elsewhere, he will never regain access to them.

Liberating the Iraqi people is a noble cause, but only if they want it. We can not assume that they want it. And besides, there are people in other countries that need our help more desperatley. As I said before, this is a disguise to cover a hidden agenda for the Administration.

consider this synopsis: We invade Iraq because Saddam continues his assertion that Bush's alleged Nukes are non-existant. after heavy casualties taken by both sides, we discover after a while that there never were any WMA's. So, to save himself from the biggest political humilation of all time, Bush have the WMA's plantedthere and say, see, he has had them all along. Yes, this may seem silly, but I will not put that pass the US government.

All this said, we must not let fear be the driving forces in our lives, even when our most trusting friends and relatives and politicians are the ones that are putting it there. Fear is a dangerous, profitable, and proven tool. We should be aware of this by now know when to recognize times that we may do something foolish based on fear alone....And not FACTS.

---

I have an appointment with ETERNITY... and I don't want to be late.
-- Malcolm McDowell (Dr. Soran -- Star Trek 7: Generations)

Visit my site at Web-knight.net

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

I find it odd that the USA is so obsessed with Iraq right now. Americans have a right to feel threatened by Al Queda, but face it people, there is NO link between Iraq and Al Queda. You know, there are a lot of bad people out there who possess weapons of mass destruction, but the US doesn't seem to care about them. So why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Why is Bush obsessing over Iraq? Americans like to talk a lot about Democracy, but Bush wasn't even chosen by popular vote -- Gore was. How democratic is that? However, I agree that the US system is more preferable than a dictatorship, but really, think people! Why is Bush so obsessed with a backwater country who couldn't threaten the USA if they tried? Sure Saddam is a bad man ... but people, there are bad leaders everywhere. Can't you see that the reputation the USA spent decades trying to build (as a protector of peace) is going down the drain? The world now considers the US a bully ... are you really happy with that reputation? Unfortunately, Bush has built up so many troops that to save face he is of course going to invade Iraq. Nobody can stop him -- not even the American people. It is really only a democracy once every 4 years. You're stuck with Bush now, and I'm afraid all he will do is make more of the world mad at Americans.


When I read opinions of people who have posted below, I realize how affected by propaganda some of you are. Think for yourselves --- does Iraq represent a threat to the United States?

And if you say they are a threat because they are not democratic, then what countries could be next on Bush's list? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan ... Do you really want to be part of a country that is known as a bully?

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

What Iraq does within it's own borders is their business, not of that of the rest of the world.

How would you feel If some country would accuse your country of having things what (according to that country) you shouldn't have... while at the same time the country who is making all the fuzz (in this case the USA) has the same things in even larger amounts... Silly really.

People who still think that the USA is in it for the protection of the world should have their head examined... They are only in it for economic reasons....it's pathetic really.

I think the UN should start inspecting America...
Wasn't it America who used bombs on Hiroshima? Wasn't it America who used certain gasses in Vietnam?
Doesn't America always take part in wars with the biggest amount of victims?

The USA should start to concentrate on their own faltering country...there's more than enough for Bush to do in his own country instead of interfering in other countries business!

---

"You don't have to quote the rulebook!"

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

I just want to say this and be done with it.

All the anti-war folk who are protesting and whatnot have the right to their opinion. Many of you claim that you do not oppose war under all circumstances, but only under current ones. So, where is the war right now? Last I checked, we were not at war with Iraq. We have given them every chance to comply with UN Resolutions (far more than they deserve if you ask me). They can avoid this war if they really want to. People seem to think that the U.S. and President Bush just WANT to go to war no matter what. Well, if Bush really wanted to go to war, he could give the word right now and no one could stop him. He has not. He is drawing a line in the sand. He is saying that if Iraq doesn’t comply there will be extreme consequences and this time we won’t leave it unfinished. It’s called Gunboat Diplomacy, and sometimes that’s the only thing that works. So, until the U.S. does something that actually warrants protesting, why don’t we all just relax a little. Hopefully, this can all be settled peacefully, but if not, I will support my country.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

I am constantly amazed by really intelligent people (like O. Deus) who advance the argument that unless you are an expert in politics you should not speak out against government policies.

If we apply this argument uniformly across our lives, we should not criticize computer software unless we understand how quantum tunneling across Silicon-Germanium semiconductors with dopants works.

We should not criticize the performance of sports teams unless we are athletes or understand the rigors of a complete aerobic workout every day.

We should not form any opinions on whether laws or unjust without detailed study of precedents set by great justices by like Holmes or Marshall.


I think every citizen has the obligation to speak out against a war if they feel it is unjust, no matter what their occupation. These actors are citizens first and have the right to express their opinions. If their opinions are deemed silly by others, they have the right to refute them.


---

psp1

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

I believe that the issues presented by Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction are too complex to sum up in terms of being pro peace or pro war. If opinion polls are any indication, most Americans seem to agree that Saddam poses a real threat and something needs to be done. The majority of Americans also seem to support military action, but only if a series of conditions are met beforehand.

These actors have just as much right to voice their opinions as anyone else. And they deserve no more or less weight than the opinions of other Americans. I say let them voice their opinions. I'm mature and responsible enough to make my own decisions. The Hollywood crowd doesn't control my thoughts or make my decisions.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

Ok, so we've got fluffy woolly bunnies on one side of the fence that want to give peace to a guy who's experienced in torturing his own people with chemical and biological weapons.

On the other side of the fence there's a bunch of gung ho cowboys and school bullies that want to invade an impoverished emaciated country and haven't ruled out the use of nukes, as if 400 cruise missles a day and 150,000 troops isn't "enough".

In the middle is everyone else desperately trying to find moral justification for picking either side when there's no clear answer.

----------

Nothing gives the US the right to tell anyone else to disarm when it's sitting on the world's biggest stockpile of nukes. Why do you think North Korea and Iraq aren't listening, why isn't Europe listening to the US position?

Do a trade off here. Something along the lines of: For every one WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) that Iraq destroys, the US destroys 3 of it's own WMD's. Failure on the part of the US to disarm completely would mean that it isn't complying with UN resolution 2441, and everyone else has the right to invade the US to make sure it's disarmed.

Let's not forget that the US wouldn't be in the position it's in if it hadn't sold the terrorists and Iraq the weapons and the technology in the first place. Go free world economy!

I also miss the point where attacking Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror. Where's the credible evidence? And by that I mean real hard physical evidence of this, not just "well, ok, we have their address in Baghdad". Doesn't mean they're working with the Iraqis. There are plenty of terrorist cells inside the US, doesn't mean they're working with the US government. The KKK is still around in the US, the government knows where they are, doesn't mean they're working with the US government either.

The basic plot of the US-Iraq war, coming soon to a CNN-enabled TV near you, sounds familiar. Please correct me if my history is vague here:

Didn't the early european settlers in the US exterminate the native indian population because they a) were a threat and b) just so happened to own all the valuable land.

Of course that was a very long time ago and people have evolved since then. Or so they say.

If the US invades Iraq, is that going to actually destroy all the WMD? are the Iraqis going to be so grateful that their homes have been destroyed, their sons and daughters killed, that they're just going to hand them over? Wouldn't it be sensible to relocate the WMD to Iran or Afghanistan so the US can't find them? Hey we can't use them, here's a christmas present for you.

Are any of the WMD Iraq has actually in Iraq at all? If I had a bunch of inspectors comb the country for ten years, i'd sure as hell hide them somewhere else. If Iraq truly has links to al Qaeda, surely they aren't in the country any more, they could be spread out anywhere in Africa, remote regions of Russia, afghanistan still.

If the US invades, and doesn't find ANY WMD there, game over, the US loses. It's very likely that Saddam would NOT use them to defend himself. Remember, he's a smart politican. The goal isn't to kill people, the goal is to ruin the US. What better way to do that than to have them huff and puff about WMD for a year, then invade Iraq and find nothing.

The USA, land of the free, the tolerant. As long as you're with them. If you're against them, they're going to bomb you or invade you.

The USA, the peace loving country that allows anyone to own handguns so their kids can go into schools and shoot people.

The USA. Do as they say, not do as they do. You may just get nuked by them if you don't.

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]

I mean aren't actors the best qualified people of all to talk about political issues? Sure most of the time they're lucky if they can find Canada on a map but somehow becoming a celebrity and being interviewed by magazines instantly qualifies every celebrity to spout off on politics, to testify before congress on legislation and to start their own foundations.

But gosh, what am I thinking, he's a celebrity so he must be right. I mean after all celebrities are better and smarter than us. They're like angels. No wait they're more like gods. Wise and all knowing beings who can always hit their mark. I mean really, who makes up their mind on an issue because some actor decided to further his career by appearing in a play.

And the fact that they're staging Lystrata as an anti-war protest is itself hilariously retarded. I mean if you pick a play that has the least relevant message to say about war today and that would have to be it.


---

"Predators of the 21st century will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons...There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
President Clinton

[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]