nooooo @shu, forget your friend, post your opinions...

/me goes to bed and hopes this ends soon.

Hey, joetheblow... nothing against you brother... but @shu is a good friend of mine and I hate to see him get flamed here because he comes from a different continent and has a different point of view....
I'm the one who advised him to not bother arguing his opinions on this thread.
It's called a "no win situation"

perhaps I am wrong and shouldn't try to influence him....
But I did say he is a friend of mine!

been gone several days. the postings have gotten long on words and long on emotion. and i'm feeling short on time.

Anyone can 'win' if they have something to say and can back it up with facts. The fact is, though, most who are supposedly 'anti-war' rarely have anything to say about what to do with Saddam Hussein.

You see it here, and at devart, and everywhere else. Months of horrible, bloody footage from Palestine, or Chechnya, or the Ivory Coast, or Zimbabwe... and... nothing. Hundreds, thousands, tens-of-thousands die... silence. Then Rumsfeld or Bush or Cheney says one teeny word about 'axis of evil' and the anti-war rants explode; railing that the US is bringing about the Apocalypse. Hurry, let's pillage a McDonald's. How sadly transparent.

I don't wanna go further and describe those who are just anti-war when it comes to their own nation or religion or race. Jafo is watching me... Fact is, though, unless people around here can bash the US about a conflict, or feel they might be drawn into it, they generally couldn't care less. That isn't 'anti-war' in any sense of the term.

**

I'm still waiting to see if anyone is gonna try to put a positive spin on the US soldiers we dug up today. For some reason it is easy to think the worst about the US, and yet we are *required* to think the best of someone like Saddam Hussein when it comes to POWs. Earlier, I got the equivalent of 'WTF?' when i expressed concern when they were taken captive. Now, they might as well be from Rwanda for all the mention they get here.

bakerstreet, you know I very rarely address you.....

I have to say that your view is the only one in this entire thread that I can wholeheartedly agree with...
some of the points you have made strike deep into my own feelings which I keep locked up tightly..

Scary isn't it?

Oh, and by the way, if anyone wants to dispute with @shnu.. run it by me first or at the same time....
I don't care....
I will support my friend's to make their views even if I should not agree with that view...
key word here being.... "Friend"

Here is a sweet story by Yahoo News http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030329/ts_afp/iraq_war_civilians_030329211652

some excerpts...

"....Iraqi civilians fleeing heavy fighting have stunned and delighted hungry US marines in central Iraq by giving them food, as guerrilla attacks continue to disrupt coalition supply lines to the rear."

"...At one camp, the buses stopped and women passed out food to the troops, who have had to ration their army-issue packets of ready-to-eat meals due to disruptions to supply lines by fierce fighting further south"

"...Khairi Ilrekibi, 35, a passenger on one of the buses, which broke down near the marine position, said he could speak for the 20 others on board.

In broken English he told a correspondent travelling with the marines: "We like Americans," adding that no one liked Saddam Hussein because "he was not kind."

"They told me they wanted to go to America after the war. I said where. They said California. I said why? They said the song Hotel California and they left singing Hotel California."

Now that's just too rich....
Don't they know that once they check in they can never leave?

I didn't realize @shu was getting flamed??? I think he has the right to post his opinions from his own point of view.

@shu has made many points that are worth addressing. I think if we spend more time looking at each others opinions and understanding where they come from might help in a clearer understanding of what is being said.

anyway... http://www.msnbc.com/news/743584.asp

not everyone is for the war, not everyone is against it. some are in the middle, and others just want peace. even more want to win now that the fighting has begon and worry about how or who and why after the fighting has ended.


For me, I don't want war because of what happens in it. If there is going to be a war that fight it for real and end it (no half as* stuff)



I was one who oppossed the war in many ways, but found it hard, if not impossible, to come up with a solution to otherwise ovoid it. Many might say you can allways choose otherwise, but I feel not to the point where your letting someone walk all over you to no benefit other than to be walked over.


So I took it apon myself to find a way to avoid the war... and found no answers. This was before the war started.

yes bakerstreet, I noticed that many of my anti-war friends tend to not have much to say when I mention Saddams record. Or the other places you mentioned are not on thier radar at this time.


I guess the question of the day would be why Saddam first? What about Palestine, or Chechnya, or the Ivory Coast, or Zimbabwe?

I think I know why, but I am not sure if it is realality or not.

also keep in mind that we all are humans and for the most part we tend to ignore things that are not in our back yard.

and get angry when someone wants to put it there

I was opposed to the war from the beginning, I didn't want it, but now that we are in the middle of it I hope we mop them up REAL good. Take out Saddam, his sons, and his entire group of loyal followers. Hopefully, God willing, with the least amount of innocent blood shed possible.

oh
another link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2003-03-05.htm

Funny, that is exactly what I think happened... but it clearly over states some issues and ignores others. It still leaves allot of my questions unanswered.

Joe:

of the few you mention:

Palestine would mean getting between Israel and Palestinian groups and terrorists there. None of them want us, and nothing we could do would solve the problem.

Chechnya would mean forcefully stopping Russia from attacking them, not a happy idea.

Ivory Coast is a French mess, and would mean getting between the French and the various factions there. Fun thought, huh.

Zimbabwe? actually I have no idea why the UN hasn't taken serious steps to unseat the 'president', Robert Mugabe, or at least protect his citizens from his hate crimes. The US froze his assets and such, but his thugs still murder white landowners and seize their property. He has had numerous political opponents and members of the press killed. One political opponent had to resort to text-messenging people's cell phones to get his message out, but then Mugabe had that declared illegal. He's used this Iraq distraction to imprison hundreds of his opponents, most of which will disappear in prison. An evil man in every sense, much like the others the UN never 'gets around to'.


Those who are 'anti-war', though, have lots to be angry about. Russia has been pounding Chchnya into submission for years, and not a hint, not a whisper from the doves. The US goes to unseat an evil dictator and every 18 year old soccer thug has an excuse to throw stuff at the police, and every high school 'thinker' has a reason to spam messageboards with tirades against the US. Sad for the millions that the fair-weather doves ignore, suffering in other conflicts all over the world.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm

It would seem to me that Saddam can not keep on fighting and keep power.


There are many non-justice type things going on around the world.


and many ways to handle them. any I speak to have no clue as to how to handle them. Many others weren't very aware of many of those 'happenings' around the world or the polotics behind solving them.


Anyway, I hope I have your vote whenI become president of the UN.

thanks bakerstreet for the clarifacation.

paxx, stay strong

@shu, do you know you have a @ symbol in your name?

Green Armani, fight the good fight. (for a definition of 'good' please refer to the Good Vs. Evil thread j/k)


be safe everyone!

The part I can't understand about the agressivity this wars brings amoung friends is : why? I mean, really. Why feel so strongly about this? Is it worth it? Is "liberating" a people that doesn't want you there really all that worth it? Is getting thousands of American soldiers killed really worth liberating the anti-American Irakis?
Now they are saying that there are 150,000 shia Iraki rebel soldiers, training in Iran, that may join the fight AGAINST the US, although the very reason they trained is to fight against Saddam. And from the moment those shia Iraki join the fight, it's just a small step from Iran itself joining in. Then probably Siria.
IS anyone else starting to think this could turn into WW3? Cause of course, then France and Germany would step in to help out the US. Europe/US vs Middle East?

In the end, is it really all that worth it? For what again? The liberate Irak, really?

Syria

Iraq

paxx: you'll never understand why, because you refuse to believe any of the stated reasons for doing this. It is the moral equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud. You'll go on believing Al-Jazeera lies, and thinking the worst of the US and the best of Iraq. You'll discount all the Iraqi people who are happy to see us there, just like you discount all those who have suffered for the last 30 years under his rule.

If you didn't discount them, you'd have a reason why the war was justified. With or without this conflict, there would be no peace in Iraq. Without this conflict, though, no one here would utter care.

So it isn't really about 'peace', is it? Like France, many would prefer the Middle East to be a ghetto, where no one ever answers a 911 call, and the people are ruled by criminals. Third world countries should neither be seen, nor heard, they should just export quietly, and how they get it done is none of our business. Those days are happily over, i think.

*******************

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/72224.htm

"I think this time Irak will treat them different. After all, they may want to prove the World that they're not such bad guys after all. That's also why I think that even if they do have chemical weapons, they won't use them, and leave them well hidden. I think they know they'll lose the war, and their only small hope is to show the US was wrong to attack them in the first place."

All of the peace mongers might consider taking their heads out of the sand and clearing their eyes and ears and minds and realize that some things, however distasteful, MUST be dealt with. Failing that, they should at least lend moral support to the troops who are risking their lives every day to make this world a better place for everyone.

oh I forgot to ask this question:

How many from countries other than the US think this is a American policy, a American government policy, or just a Bush administration policy?


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/nyregion/30FEAT.html

What's with that link, I'm not filling that out....

I homeschool my children, and with each history lesson it dawns on me, we've always had battles and wars, and we always will. A recent lesson was the US Civil war and how the people of South Carolina climbed up on their rooftops to watch the first battle, on a takeover of a fort. I thought, times haven't changed that much...instead of our rooftops, we turn on CNN.

Some quotes I like:

I dont know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Author: Albert Einstein

In time of war the first casualty is truth.
Author: Boake Carter

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it.
Author: Robert E. Lee

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.
Author: Albert Einstein

whoops I forgot.

last time I post a New York Times link

bakerstreet: I wonder who is sticking their fingers in their ears. It's becoming quite obvious that the welcoming party for the US army won't happen in Iraq.

So, again, is it worth it to get tens of thousands of US soldiers die to liberate people who are not welcoming you? And even risk starting WW3?
I was afraid of the consequences before the war started, and I'm starting to be afraid I was right, as I hear more scary things from the news.