ring, ring, ring, 911, what is your emergency?

ah, yeah, well like see my neighbor is out to get me and he's been acting really weird all month and I know he is going to come and kill me in my sleep, so I thought I should let someone know in advance that I am going to apply my right of preemptive attack, yep gonna knock on his door, shoot him in the head when he opens it and then burn down his house to ensure the job is done. Oh, if everyone else doesn't make it out of the house, do I get to claim them as collateral damage? you know, no foul?

Well of course sir! you have a good action and God Bless, baa-bye

yes, I do digress, this is not a political chat/forum.

I also did say a few times back " enough from me "...
so anyways, enough from me in this thread, I knew better too my bad...

I had thought that I'd not contribute anymore to this thread. But since you have named me in your post Frogboy, I had to put in a word.

Imagine yourself as an Iraqi. You made mistakes in 1990, paid with it with the lives of your brothers and sisters in the war and after it due to sanctions.

You submitted, against your national pride, to restrictions, starvation. Now you allow foreign nationals to roam freely into your country to check universities, college hospitals etc. for WMD's. They find nothing worthwhile. Still, the lone superpower in the world wishes to kill you on the pretext of hiding WMD's, harbouring terrorists, that too after 12 years of sanctions. Wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to destroy this threat?

If Iraq is a threat to the US, isn't US a threat to Iraq too, its shadow ever looming in the Gulf?

After 911, what most Americans wanted to know was 'Why us?' while the rest of the world was saying, 'Why not?'

I had an acquaintance, a very dear one, working in the second tower. But I blame the US as much as Osama for the death of my friend.

Violence begots violence. To kill the enemy, kill the enemity. If you replace or annhiliate Saddam, do you think hate campaign against the US will stop? When and where will this venture end? You will end up destroying the whole world before you find the kind of security you are looking for.

Who next? Bush Jr. has decided to finish unfinished family business, the legacy, with Iraq. Next on his list might be Iran, then N. Korea. Maybe Cuba then (Fidel is still alive). Followed by Pakistan (Musharraf might yield to the fanatics, already there have been skirmishes between the Pakistani and American forces at the Afghanistan border).

Won't they use all the means at their disposal, they might be fuel laden boeingd or the Stingers provided by the US itself, to retaliate?

If US calls Iraq a terrorist country, I am sorry to say, The biggest terror in the world is US itself.

That's what this thread is all about, double standards.

Here's the problem. We have different axioms. That is, we have different starting points.

I don't recognize "international law" as being a set in stone set of rules. I don't equate the laws of the United Nations with the laws of the United States. Laws that are unenforcable are not laws.

Secondly, I don't see myself as a "citizen of the world". I see myself as a citizen of the United States. I am not interested in moral equivalence arguments or "double standards". If some guy in India wants to pretend that the US is a "bigger terrorist" (which is absurd to equate people who go through great pains to murder civilians with a nation state that tries to avoid civilian casualties -- the US COULD have simply nuked Afghanastan afterall). In fact, it's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who equates my country and my beliefs with "terrorism". I find it disgusting and insulting as well as incredibly ignorant.

I also find it abomindable that people like you Shu, completely ignore my arguments and just go merrily on making up ridiculous reasons why the US is going after Iraq. Now, according to you, it's a grudge match to pick up where Bush I left off.

If other countries TRULY object to what the United States is doing, then perhaps they should put their money where their mouths are. If they REALLY believe the US is violating international law, or is some "terrorist" state, then perhaps they should put trade sanctions on. Or maybe they should increase their defense budgets so that the evil USA can't go after them. But they don't. Why? Because they know the USA, for all its flaws, is a force for good in the world. When EU countries are LOWERING their defense spending (particularly Germany) it's really hard to take serious rhetoric that the US is a "rogue" nation.

Or maybe they just completely lack any principles. In either case, there is no reason for the US not to pursue its current path: To try to remove serious dangers to US citizens. Bush is the elected leader of the US. The majority of the population supports military action against Iraq -- even WITHOUT UN approval. The US government's job is to carry out the will of its citizens. If some guy in Europe or Canada or India doesn't like that, then their best bet is to try to get their governments to take a tough line (i.e. make economic or military threats against the US to try to change its course). Otherwise, it's just empty chatter.

@shu please do tell us what you would do about everything seeing that you disagree with our views. What exactly is your view?

I seem to agree with Vagrant Frogboy .You guys said alot .I read most of it.
Let me say that i was born in the us.I've never left or wanted to.I beleive that no government is perfect.But I love the us and think we are good people trying to do the right thing.I work to hard to have time to change the world.And I couldn't if I wanted to.I think that the us is the best place on earth to live and be free,And I thank my creator every day that I was lucky enough to be born Here.

Dear The Rated PG,
I think that the US and UK should wait for the UN weapons inspectors to truly complete their jobs. Their findings should be placed before the UN and there should be a vote in the UN. If the US is so sure that the position it is taking is right, it shouldn't be hard for it to convince the UNSC for the action it aims to take, isn,t it?
We all believe in the collective sense of humans, don't we?
Iraqis have a right to exist, or has that right been taken from them???
If the US has specific information about WMD's in Iraq, wouldn't it be helpful if it provides this information to the UN weapons inspectors so that the non-conformation of Iraq to the charter is proved?
kind of nation does the US wish to be known as, does it want to be respected or feared? Cause fear does not last forever, it gives rise to more crimes.
Even now the American President is asking the Iraqi establishment to 'disarm' itself. But shouldn't it be 'armed' first to 'disarm'?

Don't forget this all started ten years ago and should have been finished then.

Never sit silently by while someone tries to justify what happened on that day as an understandable reaction to U.S. policies in the Middle East or elsewhere.

This is where the difference between nationalism and jingoism shows Iben, here the leaders are seperated from the followers.What is right for you is wrong for others.
Do you think that by invading Iraq you are doing the right thing? Someone in the thread said that Afghanis were saying 'We love America(ns)' after the 'liberation' of Afghanistan. What I think is that this is a temporary phase. Give it a couple of years, the American forces won't be leaving Afghanistan for another decade perhaps, and you will find the same people despising the same people they loved.

And what kind of freedom are you talking about, Iben. After 911, many of my friends have been subjected to racial profiling and abuse. Just because we have a skin that is different than yours? Business leaders from my country were subjected to shameful searches and detentions at American airports. The freedom, security you are talking about America is available only to Americans. For them, in their myopic vision, America IS the world.

No, we don't agree. I don't agree that the Iraqi government has a "right" to exist. A right from whom?

And I don't agree that the UN has authority over the sovereign decisions of the United States.

Iraq has had over TEN YEARS to comply. TEN YEARS. The inspectors aren't there to prove Iraq lied. The inspectors were sent to help Iraq to comply. But Iraq claims they've got no WMD. Even the ones the previous inspectors found never existed according to the report submitted by Iraq. They "don't know" what happened to those weapons. What a load of BS. "What happened to the mobile SCUD missiles we found in 1998?" "We dunno, they're gone." Right. 10 years is enough time. Saddam doesn't want to cooperate. He wants to buy time. Buy enough time so that hopefully another Clinton type President will get elected so that he can get his WMD.

I noticed you ignored my statements: If you, in India, think the US is really so awful, then you should petition your government (a nominal democracy) to enact at least trade sanctions or perhaps even provide military aid to Iraq. The US is willing to fight for what it believes in. If the best you or others who disagree can do is provide insulting moral equivalence arguments, then there's really not much reason to listen.

Heck, you ignored the evidence that shows that countries are NOT living in fear of the US. Your rhetoric is pretty empty as long as your governments do nothing other than complain vocally. Is Canada afraid of the US? Given its entire armed forces is fewer than 50,000 I would say not. How about Mexico? Same deal. Clearly people aren't really afraid. It's just empty rhetoric.

The American people have concluded that it is in the best interests of the United States that Iraq's government be changed. They have in turn, elected officials (the November victories were quite conclusive) who would carry out their will.

Now, if someone wants to change that conclusion, they need to provide reasons. Not insults. Not weak moral equivalence arguments. Real, bonafide, reasons.

Shu - master of equivalence. The difference is that here in the USA you can complain against the American government all you want. In Iraq or North Korea, you would be exterminated.

Tell me who's jingoistic? The guy who is putting forth lengthy rational logical points favoring his position? Or the guy who is reflexively Anti-American with statements equating the US to being a terrorist, saying the US has been in "all the wars" since WW2, saying the US just wants to "finish dad's business" with Iraq.

If you have a problem with the US, then clearly you're better off returning to India. I already put forth, btw, my argument at length why we need to go into Iraq. I've noticed you have refuted any of it. You just ignore it and keep creating strawman arguments.

That is what it all boils down to.
Americans tend to think locally and act globally, whereas other countries are moving towards the concept of thinking globally and acting locally.
And you say that nations don't fear you. If you remember, during the era of a multipolar world, (there was one, not along time ago), nations COULD DEFY the US and get away with it. But not anymore. 'Either You are with us, or against us.' Now, who can argue with that. Even Pakistan abondaned the Talibanm. Because the US has colonized all nations economically or militarily. WE HAVE COME TO FEAR THE US MIGHT. But, fear is a temporary phase.

Your fear Keeps me safe.

Well, that our difference, Frogboy. I consider myself a HUMAN before I consider myself whatever else, North American, Canadian, Quebecois, or whatever. I am actually not a big fan of nationalism or patriotism. I find that often it borders xenophobia very closely. Cause really, if I'm "proud" to be Canadian, what does it say of other nationalities? That they aren't as good?

Just for fun, here is a text I agreee completely with. It's an editorial from Amnesty International about the current Iraq crisis.

Amnesty International and the current Iraq crisis

1. The human rights situation in Iraq
Human rights violations have been committed on a massive scale against all sectors of society in Iraq. Most of the victims have been suspected political opponents of the government, their relatives, and members of religious and ethnic groups.

In our numerous reports over the years, we have documented:
- "disappearances"
- extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, including mass killings of civilians using chemical weapons
- imprisonment of prisoners of conscience
long-term detention without charge or trial
grossly unfair trials
- systematic torture including the use of judicial punishments such as flogging, ear amputation and branding of the forehead.
- forcible expulsions
- extensive use of the death penalty
- recruitment of children in the armed forces

2. Iraq's recent amnesty for political prisoners
On 20 October 2002 the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), Iraq's highest executive body, issued Decree No. 25 signed by President Saddam Hussain, ordering the release of all prisoners including political prisoners. While some press reports estimated that 50,000-100,000 people were released, no list of released detainees has so far been published. Families seeking information about detained relatives have not received any positive answers from the authorities.
Amnesty International welcomed the announcement of the amnesty and requested a list of released prisoners from the Iraqi government. No response has been received by the organization and we remain concerned that the releases are conditional and political opponents remain at risk of re-arrest.
The fate of tens of thousands of prisoners who "disappeared" since the 1980s is not addressed by the recent amnesty decree and remains unclear.

3. Amnesty International and the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds
The past century has been characterized by genocide, the development and use of weapons with extraordinary destructive powers, mass killings and "disappearances" by governments and opposition groups, huge population displacements, as well as gender related violations including the systematic use of rape.
This is the context which has informed the contemporary movement for human rights. The laws and mechanisms we have now were developed precisely to respond to these appalling abuses.
Amnesty International vigorously condemned the chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians in 1988. The failure of the international community to address these violations at that time was not due to a lack of options within the human rights system, but a lack of political will. In fact, rather than publicly condemning the Iraqi government and pressing for a UN investigation, many countries continued to sell weapons to the Iraqi government despite widespread knowledge of the attacks.

4. Amnesty International's position on military intervention in Iraq
Amnesty International wants to see a dramatic improvement in Iraq's deplorable record of systematic human rights violations. Grave abuses of human rights are taking place today in all regions of the world. We cannot choose to be outraged about some situations while ignoring others. The international community should pursue solutions which lead to improvement in the human rights situation in Iraq, not further deterioration, needless loss of life and increased suffering.
Amnesty International neither condemned nor supported the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan and our position is the same with respect to Iraq.
While our general policy is never to comment on whether the use of military force is justified or appropriate, we do comment on whether human rights and humanitarian law are being respected in the way a conflict is fought. We also oppose supply or sale of weapons, military equipment and military training to any government forces or armed group likely to be involved in human rights violations.
Amnesty International calls on all governments and armed groups to ensure that the protection of civilians is paramount and that the human rights and humanitarian impact of any actions are carefully considered. We ask that due consideration be given to exploring all diplomatic and judicial avenues.

5. "Regime change" in Iraq and protection of human rights
The US has called for a "regime change" in Iraq. Amnesty International is not a political organization and does not support or oppose "regime change" in any part of the world.
Regardless of who holds power, there cannot be effective protection of human rights without accountability for violations at the national and international levels. In order to develop a true culture of human rights, there must also be support for human rights education and the development of human rights organizations and institutions.

6. Likely consequences of war for the human rights of people in Iraq and in neighbouring countries
Any use of military force raises concerns about the safety of civilians in the conflict zone. While intentional targeting of civilians or use of human shields is clearly a war crime, significant civilian casualties may also result from weapons system errors, disproportionate military response, or the blurred distinction between military and civilian elements in urban warfare. Killings may also result from internal uprisings in Iraq or destabilization in border areas.
Military intervention is also likely to bring with it a humanitarian crisis, an increase in internally displaced people, and refugees attempting to cross the Iraqi border into Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan and possibly into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Guaranteeing safety and adequate resources in refugee camps has consistently been a challenge for the international community. There are also concerns that some countries – despite international obligations to provide refuge – will simply close their borders, leaving fleeing civilians to seek safety within the borders of Iraq. Camps for internally displaced people are likely to be out of reach of international assistance.

7. Impact of UN sanctions
The effects of UN sanctions on the Iraqi population have been documented by UN agencies, NGOs, journalists and academics. There is a general consensus that sanctions are significantly contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Although access to food, medicines and other commodities has reportedly improved since 1998, the situation overall remains critical.
Sanctions have jeopardized the right to food, health, education and in many cases, the life of hundreds of thousands of individuals, many of them children. There have been claims that the Iraqi authorities have deliberately manipulated the sanctions regime for propaganda purposes – but that does not absolve the UN Security Council from its share of the responsibility for failing to heed the calls to lift all sanctions provisions that result in grave violations of the rights of the Iraqi people.

8. The case of Afghanistan
The human rights and humanitarian situation in Afghanistan had been grim for decades. Abuses were committed by all sides during 20 years of civil war including by Soviet forces which intervened from 1979-89.
Despite the repeated calls of human rights and humanitarian organizations, the international community failed to make Afghanistan a priority until the conflict spread well beyond the country's borders.
As a result of international military intervention in late 2001, the Taliban, a government notorious for its abuse of human rights, is no longer in power in Afghanistan. However others who have committed human rights abuses with impunity remain. The overall stability of Afghanistan has yet to be established and much remains to be done to address past human rights violations and prevent future ones.
During the military action by the US, UK and other forces in Afghanistan, there were a number of incidents in which civilians or captured combatants were killed or injured that Amnesty International believes need to be investigated. Amnesty International was also concerned for the protection and well-being of refugees and internally displaced people throughout the conflict. Some of these displaced people were pressured to return to unsafe areas once the Taliban were defeated. Amnesty International is concerned that military intervention in Iraq may result in similar problems.

9. Amnesty's position on the dossier of human rights violations in Iraq published by the United Kingdom government
Amnesty has been documenting gross human rights violations committed by the Iraqi government for over 20 years. The Foreign Office's dossier re-publishes many of our findings and we welcome the attention being given to these dreadful abuses albeit belatedly. However the dossier makes no recommendations on how to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice - nor does it explain, how if conflict does occur, the international community can ensure that any new post-conflict government has real commitment to human rights protection. Selective and opportunistic attention to human rights serves only to undermine international human rights standards.

And that is all that keeps me safe

And I am in India and I intend to stay here and not join the Brain Drain. I am not Anti - American as you poiout. I might have made some mistakes pertaining historical facts, and I admit that. But you on the other hand, are hell bent on proving the supreme righteousness of all American actions.
I never promoted the right of the IRAQI GOVERNMENT to exist, just the IRAQI PEOPLE.
And the Iraqi and N. Korean governments are evil, but atleast they are open to the fact that the people are not responsible for the government's actions. But in the US, all decisions are collective, so the collective responsibility of the genocide is theirs.

If your safety is based on other people's fears Iben, then your security is very fragile. A person learns to fear and fear more. Until one day, he decides to break free. That day, either the fear ends or the person.
Now, we don't want either to happen, do we?

Lay down the guns And you will find out just how fast you will be enslaved by enouther.Peace is a dream .this world is run by animals .I don't acociate my self with them.But I Know who they are.

YOP i am agree with ADAM SOLLEY !!!!
good man !!!!!
any way all thats wars....is made only for one thing ......the power of petrol (oil) in irak ....the U.S.A matter only irak because of petrol stuff.....i live actualy in japan . the north koreen country is more a problem then any body can think.....the north korean goverment is very racist and fanatist comuniste (like germany in WW2) and very dangerous ...the citizen living in north korea dont go to school ,dont have any knoledge about the word,dont have hospital and the goverment make them believe all other country are dangerous and should be eliminated !
any way ..this message board will change some thing ??????

Dear Iben, freedom has been won without guns, slavery and colonies abolished without violence.
Arms ARE NEEDED to preserve freedom, but killing just because they have wronged you in the past and you FEAR that they will do that again, is insanity.
Saddam should have been replaced in 1991 itself, but the prospect of making the Iraqi people suffer the atrocities of a war all over again is a bit too much. That too without other nations acknowledging the threat. If the threat perception was so great, why hasn't Turkey given permission to use its bases as yet? They should have been the first ones to call for a strike on the evil empire.

Well I geuss I went to far sorry

It will not change anything sex777. But atleast you can take heart from the fact that there are people out there who agree with you. Some might even have a say in the political community.
I say down with nukes all of them, even ours. Same with all other weapons too.

If sadem continues to rule people will suffer