It just might be that the mighty America will invade Iraq, with a few friends, simply because Dubya wants to although I just heard on the news he may take one more step back, again, and allow the weapons inspectors more time.

Have a peek at this and make your own minds up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk
Choose "Powell faces grilling on Iraq plans"
scroll down and choose "Who backs war".

Notice how popular it is.

Can corporate America afford to alienate these countries?.

Regards.....Alan

There is tremendous support for this coming war because of the overwhelming evidence the Bush administration has supplied the people of the United States and its allies (or other countries that should always do what we say because we won World War I and II for them)

Again I refer to the animated wisdom of smart a** cartoonist Fiore.

Fiore Cartoon

scroll down to "Crystal Clear" in October.

Nothing new has been revealed by the administration in the four months since this cartoon was published.

Do I dare speak my mind? Is there room for a dissenting opinion? Well, let's give it a try and see what happens.

There is no doubt in my mind that should Saddam offer WMD's to a terrorist group, they would act as the delivery system against the US - or Europe - or anywhere else they perceive as the enemy.

Do I want to see a war? - no

Would I rather see Saddam opt for exile - or just become a good boy? - Yep

But, do I want to see Saddam remain in power with his proven record of using WMD's, with the possibility of handing a few over to a terrorist group postaged marked for another country like the USA - or anywhere else? - Nope

Let's hope the threat of war will do the trick.

Sometimes I try to envision the hue and cry that would be raised should the president be proven right about his conclusions by a catastrophic event- and have done nothing about it - the screams (and rightly so) would echo through the years.

He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Only I am not damning him. Yet.

I agree with eyore fully. Although america has lost key allies such as France, america CAN afford a war. Like powell said on MsnBc "we have a growing support for war". If america invades i think it will be the end of Iraq as we know it. I heard somewhere on the news their missle stargety launch 300-400 in one day then 300-400 the second day. Which was more that was launched during the gulf war! Also america can cause deadly damage to iraq The carrier in the Gulf coast has more than 12 planes, and their are 4 carriers in the gulf ( i believe ) So america can still bear iraq even if we cant "afford" it. I also heard on the News that they already stockpiled these missles ready for deployment

:Sorry if this was off topic:

"I hereby declare that this was my longest post"

I question my decision to use sarcasm in light of subsequent events.

The next attack will surely be blamed on Bush and rightly so. Regardless of what he does with Saddam the attack will likely be from Al Queada which he apparently thinks is interchangeble with Iraq. Nothing but speculation and allegations support Saddam has any ties with Al Queada whatsoever.

Worry about two of our enemies combining for an attack is only intensified the more enemies Bush adds to the list with his lack of diplomacy and aggressive unilateral behavior.

Bush will be more damned if he attacks Saddam without proof and support. But I agree, either way he is damned.

The behavior is not unilateral.

What if the next attack by Al-Quaida comes and the weapons of choice come from Iraq? Which is certainly a possibility. What will the hue and cry say then?

"He knew and did nothing."

We are demanding of him foresight and will condemn or praise with our hindsight. I am glad I am not president.

Obviously we can wipe Iraq off the face of the earth; if we so wish. We cannot defeat islamic fundamentalism with guns alone. Unilateral attack on Iraq will just focus terrorists even strongly on the US. We do need to use diplomacy.

Having said that, Iraq has shown a willingness to use chemical weapons and a willingness to work with terrorists. They do have biological weapons capability ( heck, we helped them on that) and would develop nuclear weapons if allowed to do so. We are safer now with inspectors in Iraq, they are only there because Sadaam fears war. We have to walk a tightrope, we need to keep Iraq in fear of war, without going to war; unless we have international support.

It seems to me any attack on Iraq would focus terrorist on the US. Why would international backing make a difference?

If we go in by ourselves, other nations won't fall victim to terrorist attacks for supporting a war on Iraq with the U.S.

We are trying to get rid of a nutcracker who invaded a country & scud bombed another because he was backed into a corner.

What's wrong with this picture????

Get rid of Iraq = no more major threat...simple


Besides, the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia actually started Osama's rein of terror on the U.S.

Trying to use diplomacy with Saddam is like trying to use spit to put out a raging fire Hugo

There is a big difference between capturing Al Quadea and starting war. If Bush see's his only options as being doing nothing or bombing something he has no business running this country.

Every excuse and supposition given to defend a pre-emptive war on Iraq can be better used against N. Korea. I don't like the idea that we are so cowardly that we are only willing to show force to those that are unable to defend themselves. The result is that we encourage countries to aquire nukes to protect themselves from us.

Keep Saddam in his ten year old box...even tighten the lid. But what happens once we remove him? You have no idea and neither does Bush. He failed in his attempt to find a leader or group to replace him. So, an unending occupation until the void can be filled is all we know lies ahead. Idiotic. Ten times more idiotic than our usual covert toppling of governments replaced with our own hand picked puppet regimes. It's the same thing really, only we are trying to legitimize it and bring it out in the open.

Bush has other things he can do that would be more likely to keep us safe. He still has the job of seeking out the cells that are actively working on plans to kill us, stopping their funding, building relations with key allies, etc. The job of rebuilding Afgahnistan and our own economy and health care problems might be pointed out to this single minded President. And if he get's really bored maybe he can take some classes on diplomacy because he is completely lacking any of the skills a President requires.

This lack of interest and ability in dealing with other leaders is my biggest complaint. He represents our global voice. He is the face we present to the rest of the world and his words reflect on all of us. In that role he has proven to be a huge arrogant, ignorant, even dangerous voice and, IMO, a total embarrasment. The fact that many people continue to support this reflection on our country is even more disturbing.

Also, there is something very wrong with a society that is so easily led to believe pre-emptive war is ever acceptable when no credible or imminent threat has been proven to exist. I have to believe that the terrorists had a good idea of how we would react and this is probably what they had hoped for. Fracture the support the US had in the global community and show that we are an irresponsible, dangerous, blindly spiteful superpower that should be mistrusted and resisted. This weakens our power and also might shake loose a few financial or military supporters that would now feel they have something to gain if the US were taken down a notch or two. One more point for the terrorists.

But I'm sure the people who support this vague plan believe the terrorists are shaking in their boots over our massive power and running scared. How sadly predictable.

Is there a contradiction here. I am sure you don't mean it was a mistake to go into Iraq the first time. However it is interesting to point out that the Gulf War inspired the organization that committed the World Trade Center bombings.

There is no simple solution. There is no simple solution. There is no simple solution. Now try it at home kids. There is no simple solution. There doesn't that feel better?

We don't know this yet.

We do know it failed. The conference fell apart due to infighting. There has been no indication from Bush as to what will happen except for the fact we will occupy Iraq for whoever long 'it' takes. Maybe you're aware of any options on the table. If so I would be interested in knowing what they are. As far as I know this has not been worked out and there are no clear contenders for the part.

As I recall, we didn't have a national leader ready and waiting for Afghanistan either. In fact the leader was that 'sorta' on the table was killed by Al-Quaida. Hamid Karzai was not the first choice.

So, there could very well be a leader that will emerge. The dice has not been thrown yet.

No. Afgahnistan was decided ahead of time and was run by a coalition that would represent the different tribal interests. That leadership was set to be in place for a certain amount of time until a leader could be agreed upon to be in charge. This happened according to plan but did little to address the war lords that quickly took charge and rendered the leadership basically impotent. Bush attempted the same kind of thing by bringing together a coalition of leaders to discuss the way Iraq would be led but it didn't work. They could not even get through initial talks before it was evident this wouldn't work even as well as it did in Afgahnistan.

No other mention has been made of a solution since. Only vague indications that we would occupy until a leader could be voted in by the people. It is unlikely to happen without civil war and infighting.

I suggest we wait and see what happens - it's not too late for good leadership to emerge - and then we can condemn.

Plenty of time for us to condemn.

If it were not such a serious issue I would sit back and be happy that Bush is making such a fool of himself and acting so irresponsible. However, I can't enjoy it when the result is going to be hundreds or maybe thousands of lost lives. Not to mention additional threats from terrorists and America haters.

But, isn't it a better plan to decide what you are going to do with a country before you run in and take it over? It would be a difficult job even if the president were a brilliant man. It just seems so irresponsible to me and I wonder why he hasn't been made to explain his intentions in that area to congress before the idiot's handed over war powers.

This isn't over yet - has not really begun - and so the label of "idiot" is a bit premature in my opinion.

Besides, I would rather discuss the options rather than fling labels. That's too easy to do. Discussing options is a bit more difficult.

I am not sure that I would want any president to say exactly what Iraq should do - how it should govern itself- whether it should chose a democracy or a benign dictator. What happens in Iraq is up to Iraq. They must decide to govern themselves. However, I think there should be, and perhaps it already exists, a plan to see to it that bandits don't take over the streets. Military government for that purpose as an immediate aftermath.

Then I would like to see us help them convene a leadership convention (yes, I know you said - and I agree - this seems to have hit obstacles), but we are not fully cognizant about what is taking place behind the scenes. This convention of leaders, hopefully representing the various blocs of cultures to be found in that country, deciding how to govern themselves.

Then, when we are confident that they won't slit each others' throats (which is a distinct possibility), and banditry doesn't rule the streets, we leave. Hopefully, sooner rather than later.

Once war starts it's pretty much too late to cry about it then and won't bring back the dead.

Corporate France, Corporate Germany, and Corporate Russia seem perfectly happy alienating America so my answer would be yes.



I would like to meet someone who believes that the terrorists or the countries that support them are "shaking in their boots." Most if not all of the enemies this country has fought in the past have believed in their cause to the point of giving their lives. The fact that they believe in their cause does no mean that we are wrong, it means that we are in opposition.

I also would like to point out that anyone who likes war, as a general principle, knows nothing about it. Nevertheless, war is an unfortunate but necessary tool in the world we live in. If one disagrees with war, under any circumstances, then fine - that is your right, then say that.

Arguments toward not attacking terrorists but doing "other" things inevitably lead to the erosion of our freedom, for security's sake, which is the foundation of this country. I submit that if our freedom falls in this war then we have lost. Attacking our enemies is one of the most viable options of all those we must embark on.

I hate to bring up yet another World War II analogy but I don't see any other choice. --- The oil embargo on the Japanese led directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and (I stress the words "From Imperial Japan's perspective) it was justified. They would not be able to continue without oil. Were we wrong to do this? Of course not. The argument that an attack on our enemy will bring about attacks on us does not hold. In order for that to stand on its own, it would have to be known whether they already had plans to attack us. Only they know that.

Iraq, like everyone in the modern world, has access to technology and with this technology even an individual can be a threat on the order of the war on terror. Don't forget, the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks were less than a score of people with box cutters

I also would like to point out that anyone who likes war, as a general principle, knows nothing about it. Nevertheless, war is an unfortunate but necessary tool in the world we live in. If one disagrees with war, under any circumstances, then fine - that is your right, then say that.

If I were against war for any reason I would say so. I'm not. I understand this is the real world and war is sometimes forced on you. However, war is not being forced on us...we are forcing it on others. Had it been Saddam that attacked us on 9/11 I would have no problem with war. I am against preventative wars.


Arguments toward not attacking terrorists but doing "other" things inevitably lead to the erosion of our freedom, for security's sake, which is the foundation of this country. I submit that if our freedom falls in this war then we have lost. Attacking our enemies is one of the most viable options of all those we must embark on.

LOL. You are saying that if we don't go to war we lose some of our freedoms? That makes no sense. If we go to war there will be consequenses. The only one that it weakens is Bush's credibility...but that's lost already anyway.

When the japanese invaded China, the U.S. didn't like it & stopped the deal. The Japanese were mad that we took away their way to pay for the war in china, so they attacked us

This isn't over yet - has not really begun - and so the label of "idiot" is a bit premature in my opinion.

Besides, I would rather discuss the options rather than fling labels. That's too easy to do. Discussing options is a bit more difficult.

Sorry. The label idiot was meant for our entire congress that handed over their responsibility to someone who was bound to abuse it. I was/am very angry about that. I can't imagine myself voting for any of the congressmen that are now running for president in 2004 that approved that decision.

Absolutely! Isn't it hypocritical? After the 9/11 attacks, Dems were going nuts with their cries of "Why was nothing done to prevent this?" Now, when someone actually tries to do something to prevent ANOTHER attack, , they're complaining again! Good Lord, I agree to the fullest extent with you, Basheva, it is good not to be president (at least when there are loud-mouthed hypocrites in our midst )!



What good are all of these things (stature in the global community, great power, etc.) if we face the risk of losing them anyway, only at the additional cost of many American lives. There are and probably will always be people that hate America, so regardless of what we do, more hostility is bound for us. This hostility, if left unchecked, could branch into attacks equal to or greater than 9/11. This is where the problem lies...

The representatives who voted for the resolution to give the president of the United States the ability to conduct military action did so as representatives of their constituents. That's what they get paid to do.

"Bound to Abuse" is an interesting phrase. How do you know he was 'bound to abuse it' ? Upon what doumentation/actions are you relying to say that? His actions in Afghanistan were also sanctioned by Congress.

When Congress gives the president either an outright Declaration of War (such the second WW) or a resolution to carry out military actions, of necessity it hands off the day to day operation because he is designated Commander in Chief.

However, Congress still has the ultimate say in the matter because it holds the purse strings. As I recall the use of those purse strings was exactly what brought the war in Vietnam to an end - Congress finally refused to fund it.

Congress can take back that authority either via a new resolution or the purse string option any time it chooses.

And, your decision to not vote for any candidate who voted differently from what you would have wished, is exactly what this country is all about. It is your right - go for it.

It's sad

The Democrats should stop being hypocrits & stop giving Bush all the grief

Don't you mean the democrats, the republicans who are against the war, and the rest of the world should just let little Bush kill who ever he wants? Pfffft.

I don't care about his political party. If Clinton was acting like a war monger I would turn against him so fast your head would spin.

Congress was cowed because they feared if they didn't vote for giving him the resolution they would lose votes. They let polls over ride their judgment. And I will not support any of the ones that did it.

How do you know it was not also their judgement which caused them to vote as they did?

And, if they voted the way they did simply to carry out the wishes of their constituents - well, that's what representation means.

"Little" Bush - is fairly tall - well, at least of average height anyway.

Can you possibly miss the point more? Who cares who's doing the complaining? goamerica and I were simply pointing out that the Dems are the front runners of the hypocritical circle on the domestic front. Also, who said anything about letting him do (or kill) whatever (or whoever) he wants? This is Saddam Hussein we're talking about, here. How do you argue with intentions to get rid of this man, who has such a terrible track record? Ok, let's use the "American troops would be killed needlessly" argument. You oust Hussein, some troops may die, but this is their sworn duty that they applied for. If you DON'T get rid of him, you run the risk of being attacked by him (or by his weapons, operated by someone else), and MANY American CIVILIANS would die. Americans die either way, it just depends on the number and the type. I AM NOT saying that one American life is better than another, nor am I saying that ANY life is better than any other, so before you try to use that against me, don't bother...

Let's say we use the "many Iraqi civilians may be killed" argument. Not likely. But again, even if some Iraqi civilians were killed, how can you say that this is better than MANY American civilians being killed. I just don't see where the possible numbers match up...

Let's say we use the "America won't help in the post-war rebuilding process" argument. This is the best argument, IMO, because there are many problems that could arise. I say that we do ONLY what is needed afterwards and let the Iraqis take care of the Iraqis. This is the way it should be.

I just don't want America to get caught with our pants down again, only this time we'd be scratching our head at the same time. Do you want another September 11? I don't, and I think that the seeds have been sown (long before Dubya's time). Anti-American sentiment is firmly a part of our world, regardless, so we have to meet it head on or face grave consequences, the likes of which we have only just tasted (ala 9/11)...

Throwing out names on either side of this issue simply masks the truth. It is not fair to call democrats hypocrites for asking how 9/11 happened and also asking why we have too attack Iraq.

The case of Saddam Hussein in supporting the events that caused 9/11 is not proven. How has Hussein ever directly attacked the United States? His WMD are for bluster and intimidation. He is not an ideologue he is a dictator who cares about staying in power. Any attack he ever made against the US would be his death sentence.

Wars have unintended consequences. I posted an earlier thread about 150,000 US veterans that are disabled from active service because of their service in the first war. Our justified attack on Iraq the first time triggered the formation of Al Qaeda by bin Laden who was angered by the use of his country as a base for US troops.

Our veterans did swear to serve our country, but we have a tradition of trying to minimize their injury or loss of life. I think it is cavalier to throw them into these situations with phrases like "that's their job" or "that's what they signed up for."

When we attack Iraq civilians will most definitely die. There is no need to rush into this war.

Also if we go in without UN support or without support of our major allies we risk causing a rift that will lead them to begin to build up their military power to balance out American hegemony. Are we prepared for a new wave of military build up like that that started the twentieth century.

We are stomping through delicate territory and demonizing all that stand in our way. Unilateral is not a reality. We live in a multilateral world and pretend that isn't the case is to put blinders on.

When the shooting starts the time to question things will have passed. Then it is showing weakness to our enemies. Then it is risking boosting the morale of those who we are fighting. Then it risks the lives of our people in uniform. Now is the time to speak.

Our freedoms aren't in jeopardy? Have you been to the airport lately? Eliminating the threat reduces the need for a defense, thats common sense. As far as President Bush's credibility goes, well, I have yet to see anything that would begin to tarnish it.


Going back to the title of this thread. "President's don't go to war, nations do." As a nation, we will be convinced or there will be no war with Iraq.

Judging from scraps of information there is evidence somewhere that Saddam and Bin Laden have links. President Bush is simply holding the information in a wartime fashion of secrecy saves lives.

Wait until the State of the Union. Sleep tonight with visions of Adlai Stevenson dancing in your head.

So are we at war with Eastasia or Eurasia? I've forgotten. I want to find out so I know who to froth at during tomorrow's "Two Minutes of Hate."

Who's lives?................

When was the last time American civillians lost lives?....
9/11?.

America has NEVER paid the civillian price of war, when a few were killed on 9/11 and a couple of things were wrecked.......Holy- Moly!!! lets beat the poo outa the easy ones....
We are invincable...........WE are untouchable.

See what happened.

Tall poppies, and always right?.

CRAP.............

American military is a laughing stock.
Your technology, and wealth, is not.

"Sticky buns and Coca-Cola, run away if it gets a bit tough", ( vietnam , N.K.).
Or.
Hang around, make a few bucks on the side ( WW2 ), dive in and claim victory and stay a while.

Like the American people, we want to be happy and live our lives comfortably.
There is no longer a trust in American foreign policy from us out here.
"do what we want" or "do what we want". There is no choice, you have the 'big stick'.

America will go the way others have because they were right.

Such a pity.
There was so much America could give the world other than death and destruction.

A vast majority of this World does'nt want this war because they know how bad it hurts, kin lost, Grandparents...Houses....Cities....ertc.

Please........Please...........Think again.
Please........Please............Dont let it happen.

Regards...Alan

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The top U.N. weapons inspector said Iraq has failed to fully cooperate and suggested Baghdad was lying about its biological and chemical weapons."

What does everyone think of this? I do not think it is time to "attack", but how long do we really expect these inspectors to play hide and seek with Iraq? I am not a "war monger" or a "chicken hawk" but it seems odd to me that Saddam has defied every one of the U.N Mandates laid out after the first Gulf War. Are we to just let the inspectors roam around Iraq for the next 5 years or so? How much time should they have there? I am just curious as to what people who think there is no basis for any type of military action have to say. I don't have the answers, but it seems more and more that Saddam is like a little kid testing his parents to see how much he can get away with.

Or is it the 'little Rich kid' testing his neighbours to find how much he can get away with??

Alan, are you in need of professional help? This is not a game, this is real world stuff. I love the way everyone here tries and rationalizing what is going on. War is an irrational answer to an irrational stimuli. It's really that simple. Some people can be reasoned with some can't...it's that simple. We have been in a shooting war in Iraq for over 10 years. His surrender demanded he disarm. The last administration did everything in this world except deal with this problem. So, now we have to deal with this and N. Korea.

Darcaine
"Talking is way overrated as a way of accomplishing a task."

Darcaine - knock this crap off. People have differing opinions - thus, the existence of this forum.

Not insane...........

I grew up with the devastation after WW2.
My Grandad and Grandma were buried beneath the rubble of their bombed house.
My father was lucky to survive the war.
Our city ( Plymouth ) was bombed into a pile of bricks.
My family never saw a real egg until 3yrs after the war ended and as for meat!!!. Our rations allowed us a piece 4" cube for the week.
Sweets........Candies.........you gotta be joking.
Barley twist they called it.
A piece 6" long had to last my sister and me a week.

I had my first steak on my 16th birthday.

I am sure this all sounds like a 'Monty Python' thing.......but its true and I was just one of millions in hungry Europe.

America was living in luxury.

Now ask again why I hate war..........because I dont want it to happen to you.

Regards.............Alan

Alan, Alan - there are some of us here - like me - who could match you war horror story for horror story. War is never a desire - but it is sometimes necessary.

Would you have rather that England had capitulated to Germany? England stood alone at the doorway guarding the liberty of the world, until America stepped in to help. Knoweldgeable Americans are grateful for England's guarding that gate. And knowledgeable people in England remember, that we did come - after severe provocation - but we came. We sent soldiers, arms, and food. England was hungry - but we did send food.

Americans are a confident people - as are Australians - but that confidence doesn't necessarily mean that we are hungry for war. No one in their right mind is. But sometimes the events call for it.

I accept that your heart is in the right place, - can you accept that our's is too? But people can differ over what that right place is. Your warning is heard, it's not a new warning. It's the way we wish the world was, but it's not always the way the world is.

But there is also a warning on the other side. Chamberlain was wrong, Churchill was correct. There is the possibility that President Bush's warning is correct. And only time will determine that.

Basheva, you are an excellent author of moving words,
I wish I could have expressed those sentiments, as I agree wholeheartedly.

How can we predict?.

War can only be the last resort when all else fails.

I dont know what your origins are but from your posts I can accept that the horrors of war are embedded.

My concern is that, generally the America public has little conception of how bad it can hurt. It is akin to a Hollywood movie.
OK....we are at war, thats what we pay the military for as long as they keep it off our doorstep.

My concern is that the doorstep is getting closer.
Having been there I do not wish America that harm, nor do I wish America to cause us out here that harm.

Regards..........Alan

Alan - you are correct - the doorstep is getting closer, but we don't want it to invade the house. And we don't want your house to be hurt either. And you and I agree to that - we only differ in how to keep that from happening.

I live in a city with a very heavy military presence, the Western Pacific Fleet is based here, plus the Marines at Camp Pendelton and Mira Mesa. They live with us, they eat the same food, we meet them in our everyday lives. We teach their children, we befriend their wives. The citizens of this city have organized extensive supportive networks for the military families left behind.

And there are a couple of very large Veterans hospitals here - so we get to see the wounded too.

It isn't a Hollywood movie....give us more credit than that. Our military is not just something we pay for - they are precious to us.

They are us.

They are people, and they are paid to die if nessessary.

I could understand if they died protecting their country but it is not so.
They will die in some far off place furthering the convoluted whims of that idiot leader of yours.

Regards.......Alan

Alan - soldiers from the UK and the US and Australia have died in many strange and far away places; the Philipines, Tarawa, Singapore, - many, many.



You are more thoughtful than this. Though in the future I might disagree with a leader of your country, I would never think to be so disrespectful to you. One can disagree while maintaing basic courtesy.

President Bush is not acting alone. Just as there is opposition - there is also support.

Point taken Basheva.

I can only make the very feeble excuse that at 1:15 in the morning this 'old fart' is suffering from 'brain-strain'.

Apologies for calling your leader an idiot.
May I call him mentally convoluted? because it slots in well with our PM.

Cynical.........

Regards.....Alan

None of that would have happened had Hitler been stopped when he first violated The Treaty of Versailles or even later when he laid claim to the Sudetanland. Thank God that Churchill was a war-monger.

Basheva,
I watched Cspan this morning and listened to what Congress thinks. At least the three that I had time to listen to make their speeches covered all of the same questions I have. They should have seen this coming. Now they are all grouping together and sending Bush official letters asking him to give more time to the inspectors. Do a google news search and you will see recent articles about that. I just don't feel like going and looking for them at the moment but they are there and I have read them.

Danya - I have no doubt there are members of Congress with questions and doubts - the vote for the resolution was not unanimous.

And, I am sure that some would change their vote in hindsight - both ways.

Congress could undo it's resolution any time it wishes as well as cut funding. It always has that option. Let's see if they exercise it.