J
Jules Asner
Guest
Re: Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?
I agree guys -- I am not Pro-war or Pro- Bush (or anti-Bush) but I think it is important to look at this from all perspectives. Are oil companies in the US and Bush frothing at the mouth over oil prospects? -- probably -- but are Russia and France innocent and so concerned about the people in Iraq? I don't think so. (and by this I mean their governments, not the citizens of France and Russia).
Let's face it, war is a lose-lose situation and I do think every possible alternative thing should be done before it comes to that, but I do not think France, Germany and Russia are helping matters either, they too have their own agendas ($$$) that have nothing to do with concern for Iraqi children.
and ITA, the whole "old europe" "new europe" thing is ridiculous.
The original war in Iraq started not because of Saddam's human rights violations on his own people, but because he invaded another country which was under UN protection. Not because of oil. If you let people invade countries a do nothign about it - like Hitler - they will just keep going and continue getting stronger until somebody finally stops them or until they take over completely. In Afghanistan women's rights groups were campaigning for years for governments to help the crisis there for women -- but nobody did anything and many thought it was none of our business and that's they way they want to live and we have no right to bring our western ways there -- but when the Taleban was removed the people were dancing in the streets, brought out hidden makeup, tv's, cds etc. (music was one of the many things banned by the taleban) -- and until Iraqis are able to speak without one of Saddam's men standing next to them to make sure they don't say anything out of turn, we really won't know what they truly want.
Saddam is not the kind of guy who wants to go out quietly - during the gulf war when he knew he was beat he caused grave environmental damage - on his own people. He is not a sane person. I think the rush to war has more to do with weather and trying to beat Saddam before he has a nuke, than it has to do with getting oil quicker -- Iraqi scientists have said that Saddam wants at least one nuke so that if he goes down he can take some people with him - go out with a bang - who knows who he would use it on - Iraqi's, Iranians, Kuwaitis? Israel, Turkey? Russia? or perhaps he would find someone to transport it somewhere else. it is vitally important that the UN keeps putting pressure on him and keeps up on his activities and tries to get him out of office.
who to replace him? it really should be up to the Iraqi's/Arab community, but will it be? the UN and west would most likely want to put a stable more democratic government in place. It is going to be a very messy situation for a long time to come.
I agree guys -- I am not Pro-war or Pro- Bush (or anti-Bush) but I think it is important to look at this from all perspectives. Are oil companies in the US and Bush frothing at the mouth over oil prospects? -- probably -- but are Russia and France innocent and so concerned about the people in Iraq? I don't think so. (and by this I mean their governments, not the citizens of France and Russia).
Let's face it, war is a lose-lose situation and I do think every possible alternative thing should be done before it comes to that, but I do not think France, Germany and Russia are helping matters either, they too have their own agendas ($$$) that have nothing to do with concern for Iraqi children.
and ITA, the whole "old europe" "new europe" thing is ridiculous.
The original war in Iraq started not because of Saddam's human rights violations on his own people, but because he invaded another country which was under UN protection. Not because of oil. If you let people invade countries a do nothign about it - like Hitler - they will just keep going and continue getting stronger until somebody finally stops them or until they take over completely. In Afghanistan women's rights groups were campaigning for years for governments to help the crisis there for women -- but nobody did anything and many thought it was none of our business and that's they way they want to live and we have no right to bring our western ways there -- but when the Taleban was removed the people were dancing in the streets, brought out hidden makeup, tv's, cds etc. (music was one of the many things banned by the taleban) -- and until Iraqis are able to speak without one of Saddam's men standing next to them to make sure they don't say anything out of turn, we really won't know what they truly want.
Saddam is not the kind of guy who wants to go out quietly - during the gulf war when he knew he was beat he caused grave environmental damage - on his own people. He is not a sane person. I think the rush to war has more to do with weather and trying to beat Saddam before he has a nuke, than it has to do with getting oil quicker -- Iraqi scientists have said that Saddam wants at least one nuke so that if he goes down he can take some people with him - go out with a bang - who knows who he would use it on - Iraqi's, Iranians, Kuwaitis? Israel, Turkey? Russia? or perhaps he would find someone to transport it somewhere else. it is vitally important that the UN keeps putting pressure on him and keeps up on his activities and tries to get him out of office.
who to replace him? it really should be up to the Iraqi's/Arab community, but will it be? the UN and west would most likely want to put a stable more democratic government in place. It is going to be a very messy situation for a long time to come.
