War will happen, WHAT'S NEXT ?

[Edric O]

Well, duh, seeing how the US has a much larger total population... ::)

But if you want to compare the social achievements of different governments, you have to measure them in percentages.

[Miles]

[c][c]

Ha ha ha ha! You really think your government represents you? You are naive. Your government, just like every other capitalist government in this world, only represents the interests of the mega-corporations who fund their campaigns.

The US citizens ARE represented in our democratic government. I admit that corporations have sway, that is certainly true, but more than that, they must look at public opionion. otherwise, it doesn't matter how much money is pumped into their campaign, they will not win the next election. So, it is in their own best intersest to listen to the voices of the public.

Why do you think that Bush has shown such restraint. If it weren't for public opinion, he wouldn't be pushing for UN support, We would have been at war almost immediatley after his inaguration. He would not have given the UN so much time to debate and stall. He is bound by public opinion because WE decide if he is to be in office next term.

I am represented because if I feel adamantly enough about an issue and take actions, then I can at least have my voice heard, as the anti-war protesters have had their voices heard, and regardless of what Bush says, they do have an impact on his decisions.

Really? Well, I guess that makes you dangerous then.

I'm not the one posting absolutes. I admit that we have flaws and make mistakes. I also admit that corruption does exist in politics, which is why I carry a healthy skepticism. I do not fully trust my government, but I refuse condemn the US government as a whole for it's mistakes especially with all our good deeds throughout the world.

Actually, in some areas, I know more about the US government than about my own. And unlike you, I judge them by their actions, not by their words.

No, you judge us by our mistakes alone, and your view of politicians shows that you know little about our democratic process. I recognize our mistakes. We have wronged many people in history, but I also recognize the positive influence we have had on the world.

The difference between you and me is that I judge the US from both sides, you only see the negative. That makes your opinion slanted and foolish.

You just said it yourself: You should have sent in troops from the beginning to neutalize the ethnic cleansing, instead of destroying the country's infrastructure and making reconstruction so difficult and expensive.

And who do you think is shouldering the largest portion of that cost? Romania? Yeah right.

Despite what you have been told to believe, people like me are not mad anti-war freaks. We judge each case separately. US intervention in Kosovo was needed. US intervention in Iraq would only make things worse.

It's funny how you anti-American Europeans rush to condemn our actions when you disagree, but who do you come running to when you need help financially or militarily? How much economic aid does Romania receive from the US? My paycheck has contributed to the economic aid sent to YOUR country, and to all the countless countries we help. Yet you claim us to be selfish, greedy, capitalists. So what actions do you judge us by?

And now you, Edric O tells me that we should have sent troops in earlier. You condemn us for not sacrificing American lives early enough. Who the hell are you to tell us when Americans should and should not die? Now you want to tell us to hold off on Iraq, so that Saddam Hussein can better prepare his chemical and biological weapons for any future attack or finsih developing nuclear weapons to drop on OUR troops, while the weapons inspectors play a the pointless game of hide and seek with Saddam. Who the hell are you to ask us to sacrifice safety of our troops so that you can feel better about yourself? You accept millions if not billions of dollars in aid from the US, who the hell are you then to tell us when to sacrifice our safety for your feelings?

It's easy to point out the mistakes of those in the mix trying to fix the world's problems while you sit on your butt accepting the charity we give you.

You couldn't be further from the truth. Afganistan was in the middle of a long, brutal civil war which you ended. Iraq, on the other hand, is currently at peace, and your intervention will start a long, brutal civil war.

And the ONLY reason Iraq is not in internal conflict is because the US and Britain have been enforcing the no fly zones. Our intervention will end the oppression of Saddam Hussein, while eliminating the threat of him gaining nuclear weapons. Again, I hope in five years you are willing to eat your words, because for as much as you think you know of us, you know little.

[Edric O]

The US citizens ARE represented in our democratic government. I admit that corporations have sway, that is certainly true, but more than that, they must look at public opionion. otherwise, it doesn't matter how much money is pumped into their campaign, they will not win the next election. So, it is in their own best intersest to listen to the voices of the public.

Of course, they are careful not to do anything that might get on the nerves of too many Americans, but it doesn't go much beyond that. You see, the government is supposed to do what the people wish. But your government (just like all others) simply doesn't do what the people don't wish. There is a big difference.

There is also the fact that the current governments have a tendency to tell the people what they should wish...

I'm not the one posting absolutes. I admit that we have flaws and make mistakes. I also admit that corruption does exist in politics, which is why I carry a healthy skepticism.

Do you? Strange, I don't see the slightest trace of any skepticism in you...

No, you judge us by our mistakes alone, and your view of politicians shows that you know little about our democratic process. I recognize our mistakes. We have wronged many people in history, but I also recognize the positive influence we have had on the world.

So do I. Let's talk about history, and you will see me praising the US for a great number of things. But this is the present we're discussing. And in the present, the negative influence of the US far outweighs the positive. Perhaps it will change in the future, but I'm not here to speculate.

And who do you think is shouldering the largest portion of that cost? Romania? Yeah right.

And who started the war again? Romania? I don't think so.

It's funny how you anti-American Europeans rush to condemn our actions when you disagree, but who do you come running to when you need help financially or militarily?

I don't know what others do. I can only speak for myself. And personally, I don't need your help, I don't want your help, and I'd be very happy to see NATO dissolve. Why don't you do us all a favour and go back to isolationism?

How much economic aid does Romania receive from the US? My paycheck has contributed to the economic aid sent to YOUR country, and to all the countless countries we help. Yet you claim us to be selfish, greedy, capitalists.

You don't really think that all the aid you give out is actually free of charge, do you? I don't know if you give money to Romania or not, but I'm sure your government gives money to ours... in return for some, shall we say, small favours... such as the right to station your invasion force on our land while the vast majority of the population is against it.

And now you, Edric O tells me that we should have sent troops in earlier. You condemn us for not sacrificing American lives early enough. Who the hell are you to tell us when Americans should and should not die? Now you want to tell us to hold off on Iraq, so that Saddam Hussein can better prepare his chemical and biological weapons for any future attack or finsih developing nuclear weapons to drop on OUR troops, while the weapons inspectors play a the pointless game of hide and seek with Saddam. Who the hell are you to ask us to sacrifice safety of our troops so that you can feel better about yourself?

LOL. So now you're a pacifist all of a sudden? Well, make up your mind. Do you want to put your soldiers' lives on the line or not? You just seem to be saying the opposite of whatever I say... ::)

The funny thing is, I'm asking you to send your boys home, and YOU are the one asking them to die. You could withdraw your forces from the Gulf and none of your troops would have to die. But you don't want that, do you? It is you who wants them to die, not me.

It's easy to point out the mistakes of those in the mix trying to fix the world's problems while you sit on your butt accepting the charity we give you.

I'm not accepting anything. My government is, and as I've said, they don't represent me.

Our intervention will end the oppression of Saddam Hussein, while eliminating the threat of him gaining nuclear weapons. Again, I hope in five years you are willing to eat your words, because for as much as you think you know of us, you know jack sh*t.

Jack Sh*t? Oh, that sounds like the guy who makes your foreign policy...

Your intervention will bring misery and death to the Iraqi people. That is what I believe. If I am wrong, I will eat my words. On the other hand, if I'm right... you'll probably just make up some lame excuse.

[Miles]

Of course, they are careful not to do anything that might get on the nerves of too many Americans, but it doesn't go much beyond that. You see, the government is supposed to do what the people wish. But your government (just like all others) simply doesn't do what the people don't wish. There is a big difference.

Wrong, although the majority of Americans support an attack on Iraq, he is going to have a hell of a time getting re-elected. His apporval ratings I think dropped below 50% for the first time in his presidency. Mostly due to the economy, which I think he has made big mistakes and would vote for another candidate if the democrats can put up a quality opponent. Public opinion makes or breaks a politician, so they had better take it VERY seriously.

The public opinion polls show that American support drastically decreases without a UN resolution. This is why he has pushed it so hard through the security council.

There is also the fact that the current governments have a tendency to tell the people what they should wish...

Granted, but the American people will notice if his promises go unfulfilled.

Do you? Strange, I don't see the slightest trace of any skepticism in you...

As I have said many times now, I recognize the flaws in democracy and am on the lookout for corruption in the government, but I support a war on Iraq. It has been a festering sore for 12 years and needs to be taken care of.

So do I. Let's talk about history, and you will see me praising the US for a great number of things. But this is the present we're discussing. And in the present, the negative influence of the US far outweighs the positive. Perhaps it will change in the future, but I'm not here to speculate.

But you do speculate. You speculate that the US government will install another oppressive dictator for our own means. You have no recent precedence to back that up. Our recent actions have been contrary.

Our negative influences do not outweigh our positive ones. Hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars are sent out to third world countries to help the impoverished nations of the world. What other countty contributes even a fraction of that?

We have also acted militarily to stop ethnic cleansing, to battle terrorism, and to overthrow oppresive regimes who threaten the security of the world, and we will use either our diplomatic clout or military action to diminish the Threat of Pyon yang. What recent mistakes have we made that overshadow those?

And who started the war again? Romania? I don't think so.

Milosevic started the war through his ethnic cleansing. You have said that you supported the war, so why doesn't your country or even you personally help those in that country who suffer?

I don't know what others do. I can only speak for myself. And personally, I don't need your help, I don't want your help, and I'd be very happy to see NATO dissolve. Why don't you do us all a favour and go back to isolationism?

So what if a ruthless dictator came into power and built up a huge army to kill all christians in your country, or in a neighboring country? Should we ignore you then?

You don't really think that all the aid you give out is actually free of charge, do you? I don't know if you give money to Romania or not, but I'm sure your government gives money to ours... in return for some, shall we say, small favours... such as the right to station your invasion force on our land while the vast majority of the population is against it.

We give a buttload of money to Romania. I just looked it up.

If you are speaking about Turkey, we did not offer the aid to Turkey for that, we have already been giving aid packages to them. They demanded it as payment for our use of their land. As far as I'm concerned it's bull.

What do we get in return for all the African countries we send billions of dollars of aid to?

No, the majority of the aid packages we send are to help the impoverished.

LOL. So now you're a pacifist all of a sudden? Well, make up your mind. Do you want to put your soldiers' lives on the line or not? You just seem to be saying the opposite of whatever I say... ::)

Not a pacifist, I do support our war, and I think WE do have the right to make that decision as US citizens. they are our family members, co-workers, and friends in risk.

The funny thing is, I'm asking you to send your boys home, and YOU are the one asking them to die. You could withdraw your forces from the Gulf and none of your troops would have to die. But you don't want that, do you? It is you who wants them to die, not me.

And when Saddam Hussein gains nuclear weapons and starts threatening his neighbors as North Korea is doing now, Europeans will ask us to do something. The risk to our soldiers then will be much greater, and that is why I support action now.

Don't forget that if it wasn't for our military pressure, inspectors would still be sitting on their butts in Europe.

I'm not accepting anything. My government is, and as I've said, they don't represent me.

Your government NEEDS our aid, as do many countries around the world.

Jack Sh*t? Oh, that sounds like the guy who makes your foreign policy...

I do apologize, I edited my post, but apparently not quick enough, but the point still stands.

Your intervention will bring misery and death to the Iraqi people. That is what I believe. If I am wrong, I will eat my words. On the other hand, if I'm right... you'll probably just make up some lame excuse.

During the war, people will die. That sucks, and I wish it didn't have to be that way. We will make every effort to avoid it, but war is messy.

However, the post war Iraq will be free from oppression, they will be fed by (hopefully) international aid. We WILL set up a legitimate democratic government and protect them until they can protect themselves from Saddam remnants, while helping to rebuild their infrastructure. Then, we will pull our forces out. This is the process going on in Afghanistan, and this will be the model for Iraq.

[Edric O]

Wrong, although the majority of Americans support an attack on Iraq, he is going to have a hell of a time getting re-elected. His apporval ratings I think dropped below 50% for the first time in his presidency. Mostly due to the economy, which I think he has made big mistakes and would vote for another candidate if the democrats can put up a quality opponent. Public opinion makes or breaks a politician, so they had better take it VERY seriously.

Well, I didn't know that about his apporval ratings. That might explain why he hasn't started the war yet... Hmmm...

Of course, we both agree that public opinion can make or break a politician. But corporate funding (or lack of it) can make or break him just as easily, if not more so. Therefore, pleasing the corporations who gave him money is always his top priority. Public opinion counts for less, and can be easily manipulated with enough money.

Granted, but the American people will notice if his promises go unfulfilled.

And then he'll make brand new ones... Or his party will find someone else to run for President, who will then proceed to break promises just like the last one.

As I have said many times now, I recognize the flaws in democracy and am on the lookout for corruption in the government, but I support a war on Iraq. It has been a festering sore for 12 years and needs to be taken care of.

And for that you have my respect. I may not agree with your opinion, but I will respect it.

But you do speculate. You speculate that the US government will install another oppressive dictator for our own means. You have no recent precedence to back that up. Our recent actions have been contrary.

That's true, and I would never have thought that you would install a dictator... until Colin Powell came up with the idea. Of course, he calls the dictator a "provisional military leader" from the ranks of the US army, to "oversee the rebuilding process". But somehow, I don't buy that.

Our negative influences do not outweigh our positive ones. Hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars are sent out to third world countries to help the impoverished nations of the world. What other countty contributes even a fraction of that?

I do not deny that you give out A LOT of foreign aid. But you also receive A LOT of debts from those very same countries. In fact, 3rd world countries pay far more to the West than they receive as aid.

And that's not mentioning all the actions of your corporations...

This is why I believe your negative influence outweighs the positive.

We have also acted militarily to stop ethnic cleansing, to battle terrorism, and to overthrow oppresive regimes who threaten the security of the world, and we will use either our diplomatic clout or military action to diminish the Threat of Pyon yang. What recent mistakes have we made that overshadow those?

Many of those interventions *ARE* the mistakes I was talking about.

Milosevic started the war through his ethnic cleansing. You have said that you supported the war, so why doesn't your country or even you personally help those in that country who suffer?

Romania does give aid to Yugoslavia, as much as we reasonably can.

We give a buttload of money to Romania. I just looked it up.

If you are speaking about Turkey, we did not offer the aid to Turkey for that, we have already been giving aid packages to them. They demanded it as payment for our use of their land. As far as I'm concerned it's bull.

Actually, I'm talking about ROMANIA. Part of the air force that you recently mobilized for the war in Iraq is currently stationed right here, despite the fact that 83% of the population doesn't want the USAF using our airfields.

What do we get in return for all the African countries we send billions of dollars of aid to?

No, the majority of the aid packages we send are to help the impoverished.

Correction: The majority of the aid packages you send are to help the impoverished, and do a number of other things at the same time. (such as influence governments)

However, that does not change the fact that they ARE helping the impoverished. And it does count as one of your most noble actions. I do recognize your merits for this.

Not a pacifist, I do support our war, and I think WE do have the right to make that decision as US citizens. they are our family members, co-workers, and friends in risk.

Of course. On the other hand, you can't make decisions like that for other nations' civilians, like you're doing now.

And when Saddam Hussein gains nuclear weapons and starts threatening his neighbors as North Korea is doing now, Europeans will ask us to do something.

I will not. I am not a hypocrite. I do not support unprovoked military action, and I will never ask you to risk your lives for us.

Your government NEEDS our aid, as do many countries around the world.

I only said that I would never ask you to give us anything. Yes, you're probably right - we probably DO need your aid. But if you decide to stop giving it to us, then I will respect your decision and I will not complain.

However, the post war Iraq will be free from oppression, they will be fed by (hopefully) international aid. We WILL set up a legitimate democratic government and protect them until they can protect themselves from Saddam remnants, while helping to rebuild their infrastructure. Then, we will pull our forces out. This is the process going on in Afghanistan, and this will be the model for Iraq.

Why don't we wait and see?

Now, I left this next issue last because it is the most important:

So what if a ruthless dictator came into power and built up a huge army to kill all christians in your country, or in a neighboring country? Should we ignore you then?

YES.

Because the ruthless dictator might just be a democratic leader with popular support, the army might just be for defence, and the killings might just be only lies and propaganda.

You see, I DO NOT trust you or any other country to make decisions for us. It is not your right to decide if we need to be "liberated"! The fact that we would not get any help in overthrowing a possible dictator is a small price to pay for the freedom to make our own decisions.

This is my greatest worry about the war in Iraq: That it sets a very dangerous precendent. If the US gets to decide which government is legitimate and which one isn't, who knows what country will be next? What if we elect a President that you don't particulary like? You could make up excuses to invade us as well! (okay, so maybe Romania isn't a good example, us being a member of NATO and all, but you get the point - you could make up similar excuses and invade almost any country you like)

[Caid Ivik]

YES.

Some people don't know about their rights. They are grown brainwashed as in Orwell's 1984. But the civilised countries should spread their culture. Today's world is fully under pressure of economical superpowers, with slightly same culture, which they of course believe is the best. There are some laws for them which are over official law. And that's the morale.

[Edric O]

Civilized? There are no such things as "civilized" countries, there are only those with more power over others. Funny how the rulers always call themselves "civilized".

As for spreading western "culture"... You call THIS culture? I call it decadence and moral decay. There used to be a western culture, but that is all gone now.

[Anathema]

Come on Edric, you can't deny all the good that it would to do to spread all the...err....Mickey Mouse and McDonalds stuff? hehe

[Caid Ivik]

Civilized? There are no such things as "civilized" countries, there are only those with more power over others. Funny how the rulers always call themselves "civilized".

As for spreading western "culture"... You call THIS culture? I call it decadence and moral decay. There used to be a western culture, but that is all but lost now.

Decadence is a bad thing. But it is always in prosperous times. But we have created also the moral values. Better, not created, but received, honored them, made our law on them. State with government based on a violence is much more decadent than a state led by honorable people, altough they have some primitive citizens. You must say that not all nations have so much intellectual base as civilised countries.

[rigel6669]

The US bombed some sites in iraq today, iraq is considering to stop the destruction of the illegal weapons.

---> Iraq is not following the UN resolution

The US invades iraq

A boobytrap created by the US to give them a reason to start the war :O

A puppet will lead the new US state previously known as iraq

[Miles]

[c]

Well, I didn't know that about his apporval ratings. That might explain why he hasn't started the war yet... Hmmm...

I think that is the main reason, along with the fact that Blair desperately needs a resolution to maintain any kind of support in Britain.

Of course, we both agree that public opinion can make or break a politician. But corporate funding (or lack of it) can make or break him just as easily, if not more so. Therefore, pleasing the corporations who gave him money is always his top priority. Public opinion counts for less, and can be easily manipulated with enough money.

I don't think you give the American people enough credit. we notice when our friends and family members are getting layed off at work because of the declining economy and it pisses us off. I don't know how he can lie his way to gettin their jobs back. Because of this, public opinion counts for more, although I do admit that corporations have a lot of influence.

And then he'll make brand new ones... Or his party will find someone else to run for President, who will then proceed to break promises just like the last one.

I don't think ANY candidate can fulfill all promises he/she makes, not with our vast diversity of opinions. But if we can see actions that are working towards our common good, and see the results of some of his policies, then we can weigh his presidency and decide if we want him back.

And for that you have my respect. I may not agree with your opinion, but I will respect it.

Just a couple examples of my skepticism. I am skeptical of the rosey picture Bush paints after the war. I DO fear that it will stir up terrorism even more, and damage our credibility in the Arab states. I fear that our apparent policy of dropping over 300 bombs in one night are going to lead to massive civilian casualties and strongly oppose that approach. I am skeptical of the level of success that he claims in the "war on terrorism". I think terrorists for the most part are biding their time.

I am skeptical of many things that my government does, but I feel that on this issue, Saddam Hussein needs to be dealt with to ensure the UN's credibility as a peace keeper. We cannot enforce international laws if we are not willing to back them up with force.

That's true, and I would never have thought that you would install a dictator... until Colin Powell came up with the idea. Of course, he calls the dictator a "provisional military leader" from the ranks of the US army, to "oversee the rebuilding process". But somehow, I don't buy that.

This is only to be a temporary solution until Iraq's government can get on it's feet. The American people will NOT support a long term occupation.

I do not deny that you give out A LOT of foreign aid. But you also receive A LOT of debts from those very same countries. In fact, 3rd world countries pay far more to the West than they receive as aid.

And how many of those debts do you think are actively being paid? Maybe in small amounts, but we are losing tons of money.

And that's not mentioning all the actions of your corporations...

This is why I believe your negative influence outweighs the positive.

We stand for freedom and liberty. This ideal has been infectious throughout the world. People are seeing what is possible, and for the most part are realizing that they want what we have. Sure corporations have done piss poor things, such as hiring sweat shop labor, but you can't judge our government by that. Ask those countries to have higher working standards, then you will see change.

We give trillions in aid to the world, and get only a portion back in repayments simply because most countries can't afford it, yet we keep on giving. Granted, sometimes it is in political interest, but our money goes to help the poor and starving.

Many of those interventions *ARE* the mistakes I was talking about.

Which ones? you supported action in Kosovo, you supported action in Afghanistan, admittedly our handling or Isreal could be much better, but what solution do you propose? We have not been perfect in these actions, but our intentions have been good.

Of course. On the other hand, you can't make decisions like that for other nations' civilians, like you're doing now.

We can enforce a peace treaty that Hussein has not lived up to. That's really all the reason we need.

I will not. I am not a hypocrite. I do not support unprovoked military action, and I will never ask you to risk your lives for us.

In my opinion, mass muder and genocide is provocation, even if it is not directly against us.

I only said that I would never ask you to give us anything. Yes, you're probably right - we probably DO need your aid. But if you decide to stop giving it to us, then I will respect your decision and I will not complain.

We have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than us, even if their pride does not allow appreciation.

As a communist, you should understand this morality.

Why don't we wait and see?

We don't have to, our recent history shows this as our intention.

Because the ruthless dictator might just be a democratic leader with popular support, the army might just be for defence, and the killings might just be only lies and propaganda.

Is that what you would tell the serbians or citizens of Rwanda? That it may all be propoganda, so we shouldn't save your lives until we had proof i.e. mass graves.

You see, I DO NOT trust you or any other country to make decisions for us. It is not your right to decide if we need to be "liberated"! The fact that we would not get any help in overthrowing a possible dictator is a small price to pay for the freedom to make our own decisions.

But the Iraqi's don't have that freedom. Saddam is not a democratically elected leader (unless you believe that the elections were for real and he gained 100% support. ALL Iraqi refugees tell of horrific crimes to humanity. For this alone, we have the right to go in.

This is my greatest worry about the war in Iraq: That it sets a very dangerous precendent. If the US gets to decide which government is legitimate and which one isn't, who knows what country will be next? What if we elect a President that you don't particulary like? You could make up excuses to invade us as well! (okay, so maybe Romania isn't a good example, us being a member of NATO and all, but you get the point - you could make up similar excuses and invade almost any country you like)

I see your point, but Saddam Hussein has broken a peace treaty with us. We must maintain the image that we will enforce our resolutions, or terrorist supporting and nuclear weilding states will become bolder and infinately more dangerous.

[Miles]

Well, I didn't know that about his apporval ratings. That might explain why he hasn't started the war yet... Hmmm...

I think that is the main reason, along with the fact that Blair desperately needs a resolution to maintain any kind of support in Britain.

Although, I saw a poll last night that had his job approval rating at 55%. With all the polls it is hard to be sure. But it is a major factor in his decisions.

]