@TG:
Jealously and animosity run rampant – deal with it. But ask yourself this, and truthfully, would the average spewer of hate not jump at the opportunity to live an American life – would countries of hate resist for one moment to trade their holdings for the wealth of the States?
i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”. So, for those you “actively” hate the US, i can’t tell wether they would do that. But you are right, many people from the “dislike” or “silent hate” fraction would do that.
By what you say, you all claim it all comes down to materialistic jealousy. I doubt that, i think there is more behind that (but if i start that, i wouldn’t survive the flaming by your patriotic-to-the-level-of-nationalistic fellows. :) )
Ask yourself this, is the access to Iraq unrestricted? Is it possible that Saddam has/already has moved his NBC facilities to sites that UN peacekeepers cannot access? Is it likely that Saddam will continue producing weapons of mass destruction, using the UN as a clever guise to hide his true agendas? How much good did weapon inspectors due to a rapidly mobilizing Germany pre-WWII?
AFAIHH, the game over what is unrestricted access is on. But the UN inspectors are trained in finding hidden, forgotten, left-over traces. I don’t think that Saddam can hide everything forever. And, more important, it keeps down the scale of his production capabilities. So, i think he will try, and the UN will do its best to hinder him. That’s a fair deal to me, whoever is better, wins.
For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there, Hitler ignored the treaties openly after a first secret start of development and cooperation with other “rogue states” like the USSR in that time. In the “rapidly mobilizing” phase, everyone even from the outside could see what happened in germany.
The only crisis that exists with the Iraque is that nutcase on the presidents seat on a superpower wants him dead.
So except for Saddam preaching the destruction of the US, Iraq is perfectly fine? Sure… :roll:
As fine as the US preaching the destruction of Saddam, as fine as Reagan’s joke about bombing the Kremlin. As fine as GWB judging the UN by “what they do and not what they debate”.
Talking is the first step usually, you are right in that, but talk doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Saddam has to keep his face, he can’t allow to give to easily, just as GWB nearly has to fight this war, because he already said he would do it regardless what the Iraq does.
We will see how the UN-inspectors do, and wether one of the two nutcases is smart enough.
Whebn our grandchildren are grown up, then someone else will rule in the Iraque.
I would rather have the new generation of Americans grow in a Iraq that doesn’t harbor terrorist, that hasn’t invaded neighboring countries, that doesn’t gass their own people.
I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq.
And let me tell you that: Germany now is a friend, partner and ally of the US. The generation of our grandfathers did all of the above.
In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.
So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?
You would have bombed the USSR as soon as you could as well, wouldn’t you? They possessed nuclear weapons as well, they “threatened” the US as well.
If they were in any ways harboring and aiding terrorist that slammed airplanes into our buildings - I would not hesistate to do so.
Fortunately, in that time there were enough regimes outside in the fringes of the blocks were the superpowers could fight each other without fighting each other openly.
And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.
That by the way is one of the first lessons to learn from game theory (coming back to “life is a game”): Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.
You want to pay back more, imagine your opponent reacts the same way.
Escalation is never smart, especially not if weapons of mass destruction are in the weapons arsenal of one of the sides.
Unfortunately, they (Chrustchev) were the sensible part in the Cuba crisis, and withdrew to de-escalate. You will call it victory, but being the victor doesn’t mean you are sensible.
Let’s see, and the moral of the story: we should let Russia build missile silos in Cuba pointed directly at the United States. Right… :roll:
Well, i have lived all my life in a border-country. Even allies had nuclear weapons aimed at us to stop the red army on our territory. Not 100 km from whereever i lived i would have been deep in the former GDR with SS20s around. I have no idea where the US had their rockets and cruise missiles stationed….
Well, the war didn’t come. I am alive and well, my country is alive and well.
Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you? Did you ever spend a thought about your borderline allies?
You claim to be the “heros” and cry and whine over a lost war, which in retro-respect you call police action, just to keep your “war balance” a bit cleaner? You call for a “war on terrorism” and don’t follow the rules for POW with your captives?
You should be thankful that the Soviets were more sensible than the US-americans in the Cuba-Crisis. Had they gone on as stubborn as you, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss. Saving the world is something were i am thankful to anyone, regardless what else he might have done.
(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)
