We had a much higher debt to GDP ratio after WWII, seems like that never caught up with us. Debt can be more rationally looked at as being similar to a mortgage payment. Most Americans choose to enter into this relationship and it is not looked at as irresponsible borrowing. The signs of economic debt being out of control is inflation and high interest rates. we have low inflation and the lowest current interest rates in 35 years. It is absurd to believe the US economy is riding on a large balloon of debt that is ready to blow.

You do realize that almost all of Europe and Australia are with us on this right. So, is that "few enough people"? THe American Corporate military? WHat do you mean by this? THird, military domination , I would love to know how you figure that we want to dominate the world.

CP

Alan did provide some proof, Conservpat. Did you not check out his recent link? Or the link he put in his very first post in this thread? You may not agree with his proof, but he has attempted to provide some.

I would be interested in some proof that "almost all of Europe and Australia are with us on this one." After witnessing the size of some of the protests on C-SPAN and other news outlets yesterday I am more convinced that the people of these countries are against us - but maybe their governments are into ignoring their people, too.

Maybe their governments are smart & want to get rid of Saddam as well

Food for thought...

..from AP newswires.
While millions of protesters were on the street , demonstrating for "No war on Iraq", an internal paper from the German Health Ministry made its way to the press, documenting that the German Secret Service has evidence, that Iraq has illegally produced small-pox viruses. Despite the official direction of the "peace-chancellor Schroeder", the German Health Ministry has started to stockpile more than 70 million small pox vaccinations. According to the German Secret Service BND, several suicide-terrorists trained in Iraq, have already entered the Federal Republic of Germany as diplomats, businessmen or students and are ready to use biological weapons of mass destructions, like e.g. smallpox viruses, on German soil. One of the major potential targets is the US Army 5th corp, based in Heidelberg. According to the German Health Ministry, a terrorist attack using small pox viruses in Germany, would easily wipe out 50% of the German population as a side effect. These news let todays happenings appear in an odd light: While 500,000 protesters march in Berlin fully supported by the German chancellor, the German Health Ministry and the German Secret Service started to prepare for the worst case of using illegal biological weapons "Made in Iraq" against innocent citizens. Controversy at its best...

Do you have a link for this?

I will find it, I have to leave for work right now. I will check when I get home tonight.

Yes, at the expense of not representing their people.

This is true, but probably not a primary concern. I may be wrong but I have doubts as to the importance of popular opinion, either US or otherwise, to the actual facts of the debate. Both sides are populated mostly by people who do not know the facts. I know it sounds a little (a lot) elitist but I don't think it is wise for any government to run it's foreign policy largely on public opinion polls.

The issues in doubt concerning support in this situation is post-war peacekeeping forces, and maybe humanitarian aid. Both the former and later can and probably will be provided regardless of the raw number of public support.

On a philosophical level I recognize the problem this causes with the ideal of democracy, but, in my opinion, it is acceptable due to the facts of the situation.

You do realize that almost all of Europe and Australia are with us on this right. So, is that "few enough people"? THe American Corporate military? WHat do you mean by this? THird, military domination , I would love to know how you figure that we want to dominate the world.

As Jaime has aleady posted.............I would suggest you review the 'people' wants rather than the 'polly' version.

I stand by my statement regarding the 'American Corporate Military'.
I see it being used as an American Corporate Fist to beat the poo out of those who say NO, I want to do it my way.

Give me a good reason to believe otherwise.

Regards to you...........Alan

It may not be wise for a communist country or one run by dictators or monarchies but it is the base concept when your government is supposed to be by the people, for the people. Bush needs to give the facts to the people so they can make an informed decision. If he can't do so he goes against the spirit and ideals this government is based on.

There were probably well over one million people demonstrating in New York City on Saturday. Melbourne had kicked off the protest weekend with 150,000 people on Friday. At least a million turned out in London on Saturday. Protests took place in Syria, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy, Ireland, Indonesia, Uruguay, Germany, Greece, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Malaysia, Thailand, Holland, Denmark, South Africa, Japan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Hong Kong, Kashmir, Russia, China, Ecuador, India, Iceland, Egypt, Nigeria and even Antarctica.

That's not just public opinion...it's world opinion. And when you still sit there and say it's of little importance because Bush is right and the rest of the world must be wrong you might be happier living under a dictatorship elsewhere.

Settle down Danya

There are those who question and those who find some of the answers too hard to deal with.
I suppose it can be summed up in a single word 'UNCOMFORTABLE'.

I, and many others, am 'UNCOMFORTABLE' because we question.



God bless those who question

The post about public opinion was purely my opinion about whether or not the protests should make a difference. Because I am facts-oriented in my approach to policy, I don't believe they should. That, of course, is purely my opinion. Yes, it's elitist, but that is fine with me. Elected leaders should be given the freedom to take legal measures to do what's best for the country. Public opinion should factor in largely on election day.

Why? People are largely uninformed and that can't exactly be blamed on Bush...

As for questioning, careful with the generalizations , I've been questioning for months in numerous thread around this forum and elsewhere. I hope to see you there as they pose a number of "questions" which are worth answering.
Iraq and Containment

Iraq refuses to disarm
Do You Think That Iraq Has WMD?

I don't have any problem with the people demonstrating against war. That is great, and I am all for peace, but it is one thing to just chant "Peace, Peace."; while it is another thing to actually have a solution. The fact is that all 15 nations on the security council signed resolution 1441 stating that Iraq must disarm or face "serious consequences." It did not read, "or face even more inspections." Since that time Iraq was supposed to have disclosed all of their weapons in the report back in December, which Blix himself says they did not. They were also supposed to give inspectors "unfettered" access, which Blix himself says they have not, except Blix puts it as, "they are cooperating, except when they aren't." If you listen to Colin Powell, he is not just a "warmonger," he actually is very reserved and makes a lot of sense. In addressing the UN, he basically was saying that we know Iraq had these weapons, and we know Saddam despises the US and will use them or give them to those who use them. The UN passed resolution 1441, but now that Saddam has not complied, some countries do not want to follow through, but instead offer more inspections and another resolution. I do not agree that obliterating Bagdhad is the right thing to do, but our strong show of force and the threat of "serious consequences" which were promised in the first resolution are the only reasons Saddam has opened up as far as he has. Everyone demanded that the U.S. go through the U.N., and we have; but how long does the world expect the U.S. to watch as the U.N. does nothing about a threat to our national security?(as well as theirs)

Bush has not even been able to prove there is a threat to our National Security as far as Iraq goes. Bush only went to the UN four months ago and Saddam is slowly but surely cooperating. Saddam may not like it and he may act like he is considering requests instead of complying with orders. He may try to save a shred of dignity by an attempted haggle here and there. But he is cooperating because he has no other choice. Why rush into bombing Iraq if we don't have to?

The UN went to Iraq twelve years ago about weapons programs, let's put this in perspective.

Also, Saddam is still not cooperating, "slowly but surely" (twelve years, and I call that "surely" into question) is not exactly assuring that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction (or never had WMD to quote Saddam's obvious lie recently). Of course Saddam has a choice to not cooperate, he is acting on that choice presently.

Obviously Saddam is not truly acting proactively to disarm and is therefore in violation of UN resolutions with no intention to change that fact.

How old is Resolution 1441? Stop trying to bring up a decade of non compliance after we permitted it to go on with a nod and a wink all of these years. We traded starving his people for his compliance and were satisfied until now. We did not seek to resolve the issue until four months ago. This is the diplomacy that should have been happening way before we were building up troops and calling for regime change. Bush put the cart before the horse and now he's having to deal with that.

So the rule of law means nothing then?

Gosh, that Constitution is SO old, maybe we should just scrap that also.

I must applaud you though, Danya, for being one of the first to actually say that UN Resolutions mean squat. Most people who are against this potential war chose to ignore the issue of enforcement of the resolutions altogether. At least you're up front about it.

1. We who? As in who was president then? Saddam is the only leader involved who has been in power during the entire period. Trying to blame allowing former noncompliance on Bush is ridiculous.

Am I trying to blame Clinton? Not necessarily. (poor guy had other things on his mind ) But you made the accusation...

We should be praising Bush for getting the UN working to "resolve the issue" as you put it. The troop buildup is precisely why Saddam is even trying to act as though he is complying...

A decade of non compliance isn't beside the point, it is reality and what history has taught us about dealing with Saddam Hussein.

Concerning the first point, I agree with you. As I said in my previous post, I do not think bombing Iraq to smithereens is the answer, but the show of force is the only thing that has gotten him to do what little he has done so far. The problem I have with the U.N. resolutions is that they are simply that, resolutions only, and it seems the U.N. will not back them up. With someone like Saddam, you run into the problem of believing he is being truthful and will follow all agreements, which is dangerous and naive.

As far as your second point about proof, the point Colin Powell makes is that we know Saddam has nerve gas and biological weapons, but there is no proof he has gotten rid of them. The proof many people are seeking (hopefully) will turn up in the form of someone arrested at the border with VX gas they got from Iraq and not in the form of 10,00 dead people in New York or Chicago. (i.e. 9/11) People are calling for a "smoking gun" but remember the only time a gun smokes is after it is fired, and I for one (as I believe does everyone else) would rather find a gun that has not been given the chance to "smoke".

The UN isn't a war council and it isn't the World Court. There is already one of those that we refuse to participate in. It is a place to work things out before they erupt into WW3. Kind of like family counciling before divorce or disaster and hunger relief after a disaster.

The resolutions are a tool for diplomacy. The diplomacy is meant to find other alternatives to war. The resolutions are simply that...something they resolve to accomplish diplomatically and in agreement with the opinions of the other nations. We (anyone who partners in the UN) expect the countries who pledge support to acknowlege and work within that framework that the UN puts forth to correct certain problems in the world. It's a step taken help avoid WW3

You are correct that without the cooperation of the interested parties there is failure and war can and does result. That is the very thing they are trying to avoid. It can only work on helping to find a fair and interested solution. When the US, Iraq, or Israel refuse to comply they are either going to be sanctioned, scorned by the others, isolated, or attacked by their enemy depending on the offense and the outrage involved. The UN is simply something we all agree to participate in in good faith to achieve peace between nations.

The goals of the US are decidedly different then the rest of the world in this case. Just as Israels commonly are. Does that mean the whole idea should be scrapped? I don't think so. It still gives options to those willing to find other ways to solve their problems and brings attention to wrongs being done. It's simply gives council and helps provide the necessary tools that keep out as much hunger, disease, war, and human rights abuses as it can. We can either ignore them and become one of the scorned and do what we want or continue to listen to their council and get their help with inspections and whatever else they can do. We can work as a team or go it alone. It's our choice but it doesn't render the work the UN does irrelevent just because we choose to ignore their council.

We as in every country that is involved or interested in the fact that Iraq is not following through on their part of the bargain.

We should be praising Bush for getting the UN working to "resolve the issue" as you put it. The troop buildup is precisely why Saddam is even trying to act as though he is complying...

A decade of non compliance isn't beside the point, it is reality and what history has taught us about dealing with Saddam Hussein.

I'm not saying Bush is wrong for getting the UN working to resolve the issue. I'm saying had someone come before the intention of war was declared and efforts to topple him without trying to reinforce those resolutions first he might have more support. But, now no one really believes Bush went through the UN looking for another way to handle this besides military intervention. He just encountered brick walls everywhere else he turned. He's still facing the same brick walls and now he must decide if his victory in bringing back the inspections and forcing Saddam to pay attention or face attack is enough. If not Bush wants war he should go and attack and deal with backlash that the world has told him he can expect to result. That's ultimately up to him.

No, not "pay attention" or face attack, the options as set out by the Security Council in Resolution 687 were, disarm or face attack. Bush is rightfully trying to get the council to face up to that fact. To suggest that not being satisfied with Iraq's current level of "cooperation"(and failure to disarm) is the same as wanting war, is wrong.

It's not naive at all. No one believes he will turn into a nice honest guy...but that isn't the point. He is no more trustworthy than a rattlesnake and never will be. Everyone knows a rattlesnake could and would bite...even so, if it's encased behind glass and under lock and key you have no reason to go in and kill it.

Do we bomb the whole zoo to get rid of the rattlesnake or do we simply do what we can to protect ourselves from him? He isn't fooling anyone.

How old are the original 16 resolutions? At least 11 years old

Saddam violated those 16 & the UN let it slide

So we draft up 16 new ones & he violates those....let's let it slide again & go through the same BORING process over again

So sorry...wouldn't want to bore anyone with a peaceful solution when we can have so much excitement with bombs. The national attention span in the US is so short even the bombs will soon become boring...then we'll move on to N. Korea where nukes can spice things up a bit. How does that sound?

Our attention span only lasts for 12 years, shame on us.

CP

Solution to what? Iraq disarmament? We have no peaceful solution at this point Saddam Hussein refuses to abide by the peaceful solution laid out for him.



I would encourage you to read the "Iraq and Containment" thread in this forum so that you might see, the glass case is full of well-used holes.

I'm talking about the boring "passing 16 resolutions only to end up in a cat & mouse game" loop





That explains why Lockheed comes up with new ones for every war

Our current "game" with Iraq started this August. Is has been unconvincingly sold as part of a war on terror. The language from the very start has been "we have the fight this out or lose our credibility"
Getting tough with hussein is one thing, and something that likely will benefit the world, but the false sense of urgency on this has been created by dubya when we have time to present a more convincing case. And also we have time to set out a more reasonable set of cause and effect steps that will lead to war if Hussein isn't disarmed or removed from power.

Let's not pretend that this is a continuous twelve year game and that the US has been pushing the UN to enforce these resolutions all along. We have more time than we are allowing ourselves to find a tough line policy on Iraq, get the support of our allies and ratchet up the pressure steadily to get Iraq to comply or face the consequences.

This way we look like war mongers because we abruptly change our policy in regards to Iraq, tell the rest of the world they are either with us or against us, and resist the peaceful alternatives such as UN resolutions and UN inspectors from the beginning. In this particular case style is very important, and our message has been we want war on this one.

How do we pressure other world powers to find a resolution to their problems other than war in the future. What happens when we need that credibility?

1. It is important to remember that, unlike Iraq, the US changes it's leadership periodically
This makes it considerably harder to keep up a clear appearance of consistency. However...

The three presidents we have had during the Iraq conflict each pushed strongly for the disarmament of Iraq, some with more resolve than others but all have demanded Iraq disarm. This is not a sudden change in US policy. This administration is merely demanding a conclusion to years of Iraqi non-compliance.

While I understand that we change our leadership regularly, that does not mean that good foreign policy has abrupt shifts with unrealistic timelines. In this case that's the way I call it. President Bush started this thing off with fighting words. It did not have to start at that level of intensity.

I disagree it is precisely that intensity which has encouraged the Un and Iraq to act. In addition the presence of troops means they are ready for the prime fighting period in Iraq (not in the heat) if action is to occur this year.

Previous administrations always worried that if Saddam fell, chaos would follow, rippling through the region and possibly igniting another Middle East war or conflict similar to what was created in Israel. This is why they didn't push very hard...it wasn't worth it.

Bush refuses to let any of that bother him. He has yet to come forth with a credible plan to deal with the mess he is about to create.

I doubt that the ouster of Saddam would cause a ripple of chaos in the Middle East

There are some arab leaders who would gladly see Saddam go as well...Exile or Hauge

Boy...you are right

Regarding the op, this war seems to be the U.S. preparing to attack with a small coalition-of-the-willing-to-be-bought.

The bidding war going on between Turkey and Washington is highly distasteful because it really comes down to blood money. How much can we pay these people off to go against 94% of their country's opinion to turn on their neighbor?

Washington seems to think Turkey should be greatful for their agreement to pay $26billion dollars but feels $30billion is extortion. I disagree. If you go to the table to buy someone why should you get to decide what they're worth? The people who are in the wrong here are Washington. If this war were necessary and for the good of Saddam's neighbors as we always say then we wouldn't need to be haggling over another $4 billion because Turkey would have plenty to gain anyway. Don't forget this is in addition to what NATO has already agreed to for aid and protection from this war.

How many countries would be able to resist $26 billion? How thrilled should we be that that kind of money will be going to Turkey to help clean up a mess that we don't have to make? How much could that money do for our own economy or homeland safety? How much is Bush willing to spend to get his way?

Russia said they have received information that the inspectors "are being subjected to extremely strong pressure ... to force the inspectors to leave Iraq as they did in 1998 or to force them to give the U.N. Security Council evaluations which could be used as a pretext for beginning a military operation." I only wonder how much Washington is offering them and how strong would a person have to be to resist billions of dollars in bribe money. Link

You think they might be doing this for their and the world's well being ?

CP

Be bought

Turkey isn't being bought

Turkey is just siphoning us for more aid money because we need their country for one of a couple staging areas to launch an attack on Iraq when the time comes & they know that we need their country desperately for a military launch point so they are taking advantage of that need & they know we will pay anything to get that launch point

GoAmerica are you using sarcasm? Turkey is definitely being bought and the negotiations aren't even subtle.

Also let us not pretend that we are engaging Iraq for the world's well being. Even if it is in the world's best interest, we are acting in what Bush conveives to be our self-interest. If we were trying to act in the world's best interest we would probably be a willing participant in the UN process instead of saying it will back us or become irrelevant.

If these actions were in the best interests of the other countries we might not need to buy our presence. In the Gulf War many countries underwrote our war effort instead of entering into negotiations for handouts to secure a foreign policy position that the US wants our dollar taking allies to hold.

I don't think that is a totally fair characterization. The problem is that the UN had no process in Iraq (besides failing sanctions) immediately before 1441 and is now trying to take the pressure off of Iraq by implying inspections can continue without a clear end. That is certainly not in the world's best interest. Therefore I believe it is a reasonable position to confront the UN with the inevitable choice to insist on Iraq's disarmament with the credible threat of force for non-compliance versus, being ignored after a couple of years like last time. I would say our stance is in support of an effective UN process and in the world's best interest.

No i am not using sarcasm, it's the truth. Turkey is just siphoning us for more money because we need their country as a base of operations & they are going to take advantage of the situation by grubbing for more money

Evidence?

* I just remembered that this thread is about American corporate interests in repsect to war with Iraq. Perhaps, we could go back there?

Since this thread is 'Who wants Dubya's war', I came across a quote that I had not seen before from the Senate floor.



Not sure why he hasn't followed in this vein since then......politically expedient not to, with election season looming?

Election year: Say what the public wants to hear

What they want to hear is: War is wrong, therefore we should use diplomacy

Result: Lots of votes