If it doesn't have.us in the name, but.org, there is a very good chance that is an international website (targeted at everyone, not US citizens). Nevermind where the servers sit... might as well be in Canada, or Cuba.
> It was the French who were doing business with Iraq during the embargo. It was the French who gave Iraqi leaders passage out of Iraq during the war.
Would you mind substantiating your opinion with facts? Real facts, not plausible, but absolutely unfounded might-be-might-nots, like the invisible weapons of mass destruction.
> The USA is a country founded on freedom
No longer.
> The USA is a world leader
> and we will continue to be a world leader
The United States' militant insistence on that is the cause for much of the world's current woes. If the US so desperately need to triumph and celebrate themselves, i see no problem with it; but please do it at home and leave the world at peace.
You have fallen to a misconception... nobody envies the US' wealth, but many fear the US' meddling. The open aggressiveness, the readiness to ignore international treaties and conventions, war, bombs, foreign intelligence, you get the picture.
Just how can you say that? Anyone who is opposed to solving a problem by the wrong means (and yes, war is wrong) has egoist motives for that stance? What a sad world the world you live in must be.
On the contrary, I believe there are people who want to do the right thing, just because. Maybe I'm an idealist.
> The EU is just pissed because the US doesn't follow their orders.
Umm. I think you confused something, because it's rather the other way around. The US pushed like mad for a war, but still nobody agreed. Now they're doing it on their own, like a banana republic.:-(
> Maybe so,but you/they would be left in the cultural dark-ages!!
You think your culture is innately superiour to other cultures, and therefore you must spread it all over the world? Sounds... fanatic. No culture is "better" than any other, just different.
> Face it you love the USA while hating the USA!
I do neither. But I'm disgusted at their current militarism, love for war and disregard for international law and agreements.
> Iraq, under Saddam, has violated at least 14 UN sanctions and what did the UN do to about this, ask for more time, so he can violate more?
I believe UN actions on Iraq have been _effective_ - Iraq hasn't been a danger for anyone during the last 12 years. Nevermind many of the resolutions were only grudgingly or not at all adhered to by Iraq. It worked. Iraq was under control.
When all of a sudden someone in Washington got bored and decided to put pressure on Iraq and try to find a pretext for war. What was the urgent reason to attack Iraq? None, really. Things were working out just fine.
> And simply as a side thought I can not understand Americans who hate their country, tell me, why do they stay here?
Probably because they like the countryside, their home, their family, their jobs, they just don't like the crazy politicians and the fanatical patriotism and all the bizarre stuff going on over there. But I'm just guessing. Go ask an American.:).
> Then they SHOULDN'T! They've been warned enough, God knows.
Huh? I meant, that's why there are weapon caches in unsuspicious places in cities. Because Iraqi (paramilitary) forces are furced to undertake urban warfare instead of open field combat, in which they wouldn't stand a chance.
I don't really understand, what point you are trying to get across regarding palestinians. I think Al Jazeera is not as fanatical as you think - but it's also true that an Islamic TV broadcaster necessarily has a different point of view than a US broadcaster. Different cultures, different views, different propaganda. I think Al-Jazeera is rather objective when compared to other venues of information (US Military, Iraqi State Television).
But your insistence "Arabs = evil" is worrying. You know, that really is racism. There are many "arabs", most of them moderate, nice people with wives (maybe several;-)) and children and all, I believe. What did an arab do to you that you hate the entire ethnic group so much?
I tend to get the impression that you are no less fanatical than the ones you're defaming.
> And when Israel finally stands up and defends itself against this kind of aggression, they are castigated.
What has Israel to do with it? I thought it was America vs. Iraq we were talking about. Lie over and die?? For me??
Anyway, Israel vs. Palestinians can neither be solved by terrorist attacks nor by sending tanks to tear down villages. How about peaceful dialogue? Autonomy/independence of occupied area?
> Speaking of which, if bloodshed was really to be avoided, why didn't your man Hussain admit his weapons after 12 years of inspections?
_My_ man? I think you're confusing something there.
I guess because there really aren't any bio/chem weapons left? Nothing to admit?
I guess I read other news. The last thing I heard about the Kurds in northern Iraq was that they were suspicious, since they would love to fight for their independence, but according to US/UK plans, would not become independent. Turkey even has sent or is sending troops into northern Iraq to control a potential Kurdish break-away from Iraq.
They don't actually welcome this war. They want independence, which they are not going to get, they don't want bombs and Turkish troops. You won't see a Kurd uprising in support of the American invasion.
> Stockpiling weapons in schools and hospitals is bad enough
Yes, it is bad. But Iraqis are in a desperate fight against superiour invaders. They cannot just walk out into the field and wait for the bombs to drop on them.
> - the chemical suits should give a further clue. Maybe a clue. Everything but a proof. Since you are comparing me to a conspiracy theorist, then why do you have to rely on little clues? I think if there had been proof of WOMD, the war would probably found world-wide acceptance.
Existence of WOMD is only certain in popular perception, but largely unobstrued by facts.
> Clearly, we're not dealing with nice people here.
During a war, people on both sides tend to cast aside niceness.
> Why would they lie about this stuff so strenuously?
How do you know they're lying? The argumentation has the fault that it relies on the truth of the conclusion. "Since Iraqis have WOMD, but say they haven't got any, they're lying. They must be hiding something, or why would they lie. Therefore, they have WOMD".
On the other hand, "reliable intelligence" from US and UK that was used to argue in favor of a war has actually been proven wrong in a lot of instances. UN weapons inspectors were given intelligence information, but found it to be inaccurate and misleading.
I wouldn't be too sure about who's lying...:-(
> And what will all of you say when the WMD is found (and it will be eventually). What?
Then I will still say that the war was illegal, as it happened without legitimation. There was no hurry; inspections were proceeding remarkably well. The deaths of thousands of people could have been avoided, as well as the weakening of international law and the UN charter.
> That WE planted it?
I would not put it beyond the US to "overemphasize" or "misinterpret". It has in the past, especially while trying to find an internationally accepted justification for the war (it failed).
> To know that the world is a better place [...] I can bear that cost, can you?
But the cost is very high, and the world will not be a better place. Until a few weeks ago, it was generally accepted agreed upon by the civilized world that countries have no business waging war on another, except in self-defense, or by international consensus. Every country that violated that agreement had to face consequences.
Now the US itself is violating the UN charter, and the UN stands powerless. Even the nations that support the cause of the US government ought to oppose the means and uphold international law. But the US are the most powerful and in the past have also been one of the most "morally upright" members of the security council, wielder of veto powers. How could they possibly be the target of UN sanctions?
Thus, the world order the UN symbolizes has been significantly changed. To the worse. No matter how the war in Iraq ends, if weapons of mass destruction are found or not. The war itself never should have happened.
> You don't beleive the 3000 chemical/biological protective suits found in a hospital? The weapons and ammunition found in the hospital?? Why would a hospital need weapons?
Maybe they put them there in the hope the place wouldn't get bombed?? Duh... US forces have aerial superiority, so Iraqi forces try to negate that advantage by hiding stuff.
Chem/bio protective suits don't necessitate the existence of chem/bio weapons. You're confusing cause and effect. I'm quite certain US forces also carry protective suits with them. Every decent army does.
> Germany is a participant in this war. They are a prime military supplier to the Iraqis.
This is untrue. Much of Iraqi military equipment has been supplied by the US during the first Gulf War (Iraq vs. Iran) or by the Soviets (btw, why, if Iraq was US backed?) (Scud etc.). After 1991, the sanctions were in place.
> It is a might bit hypocritical to affect an anti-war stance whilst you are busy making hay from it, I think.
Please, support your allegations with facts!
> If the Germans were true pacifists, their government would shut down the german arms industry instead of banning video games.
Arms exports from Germany are very strictly regulated. Even allied countries such as Turkey have occasionally had problems with strict regulations in Germany, since they could not guarantee the weapons would not be used against internal opposition (Kurds).
> The US has been in the most desirable position of not having a war on their home soil, with two notable exceptions in 1941 and 2001.
I think it is dangerous to blur the distinction between a crime and a war. The destruction of two buildings by civilians who kidnapped a plane was not an act of war, but an act of terror. A crime of the worst sort.
> They just chose their side and fight for the arabs as best they currently can.
I think you suffer from a misconception there. Germany definitely is against the war because the Germans are against the war. There have been hundreds of thousands of people marching and protesting against the killing of innocents and the breaking of international law. Peace movement in Germany has been traditionally strong, at least since the 1970s-80s. German constitution even forbids war that is not in direct self-defense or direct defense of an ally.
> I hate to break it to you, but some of those "invisible" weapons they're not supposed to have were shot at Kuwait.
There has been no evidence of a chemical, biological or nuclear payload in the area where the missiles struck. Conventional missiles not exceeding a range of 150km were not banned; if you take a look at a map, you can easily see that Kuweit and Iraq are bordering countries. How do you know the type of the missile that was shot, btw? Didn't they explode?
> Also, it's kinda amazing that Saddam Hussein is telling his troops they can use chemical weapons (Al Jazeera along with American stations are all confirming that.)
Wow, you speak Arabian? If you don't, please don't quote Al-Jazeera.
I have only heard that primarily in American media, there have been rumors of a mysterious red line drawn around Baghdad, upon the crossing of which chemical weapons are to be used. I don't believe the rumors. We shall see.
> The U.S. has stated over and over that the oil of Iraq is for the Iraqi people.
And since the oil is for the Iraqi people, they must export lots of it FAST to finance the rebuilding of their country, thus lowering oil prices world wide and giving US economy a boost as a certainly not intended side effect. And of course there will be licences to non-Iraqi companies to make use of all that oil, incidentally a lot of American ones, like the one, Haliburton I think, that was once led by a certain Mr. Cheney, or the ones that paid for Mr. Bush`s campaign.
Of course it's not only about the oil. It`s also about American hegemony and all the paranoia and fear that the collapse of two buildings in New York has induced. I believe that many American believe in the myterious WOMD that are only half a world away and thus endanger their precious suburban idyll. Well, that`s paranoia, it`s your right to have it, but it`s not your right to start a war based on it.
> Iraq didn't even account for the WoMD that we know they had after 1991.
I think Iraq _said_ they had been destroyed. How exactly can they account for their destruction in a way that you would believe it? Should they make up proof?
> If you seriously believe the Iraqi scientist didn't know the range of their own missiles, you are very naive.
An aberration from the allowed range of up to few dozen miles when shot without payload and guidance should certainly have been avoided, but equally certainly is not a reason for war. The missiles were being destroyed when the US invaded. Leaves one to wonder: what exactly do the US want.
BTW, between the US and Iraq, there is quite a big ocean. Missiles that exceed their allowed range of 150km by a few dozen more still don`t hit America. No justification at all for "self-defense".
Why focus on Iraq at all? Because it`s rather a subjective thing, paranoia and hatred, than one guided by objective reasoning.
> Read their history textbooks and then tell us that.
Well, I've read them. They manage to convey the notion that war is a rather negative thing, and stress modern developments like foundation of the UN. I think I remember that an American statesman's ideas (Roosevelt) of a regulated peaceful coexistence of countris were very important for the foundation of the UN and UN charter banning offensive war.
> Yeah, the UN would hate to have to do anything as ridiculous as actually enforcing their resolutions
The inspections were working flawlessly, no WoMD were found. No resolution called for a regime change.
What exactly are the US trying to enforce?
> How many people have to die under Saddam's bootheels before France decides that taking care of this problem is more important than their oil contracts?
Well, how many people have to die under the American bootheels, until American oil barons have all the Iraqi oil contracts they covet?
You cannot arbitrarily invade countries of whom you say they treat their citizens unfairly. Humanitarian concerns have not played a great part in the war debate, and very few people are as naive as to believe that the architects of this war are concerned with the Iraqi people.
I don't even believe that since 1991 there have been any atrocities that would have justified the atrocities of war. Furthermore, nobody asked for intervention. Even the Iraqi opposition is very wary concerning America and its motives.
> But now that the USA is threatened, rather than some cute ethnic minority, oh no we musn't defend ourselves.
How exactly are you threatened? A tiny country the other side of the world has MYSTERIOUS INVISIBLE weapons of mass destruction they might use against you in the far future? Ooh boy, now that justifies a war.
On the other hand, using the same reasoning, the US has been a very noticable threat to a number of countries, as they really own state of the art weapons of mass bombing and the necessary means to get them anywhere. So, by your logic, for example a North Corean pre-emptive attack on the US would be justified?
I think not. By symmetry, US pre-emptive attacks are equally unjustified. This is not self-defense, this is aggression.
> We did EXACTLY THE SAME THING in the late 90's with Kosovo
At least there were people in Kosovo who _asked_ you to intervene. I still don't think intervention (which caused massive refugee crisis and killed lots of people on both sides) was justified. And yes, there _were_ Serbian children bombed, as well as Albanian children and lot. It was a mistake to bombard Kosovo.
> > Prosperity and economic growth is possible without killing people.
> How?
The same way it is possible when killing people, just leave out the killing bit. Human bodily fluids are of no vital importance in any industrial process, thus you need not extract them. Period.
Switzerland has led a remarkably peaceful existance while sustaining a rather high standard of living...
Why do you think war is necessary for long-term economic stability?
Slashdot Mirror
If it doesn't have .us in the name, but .org, there is a very good chance that is an international website (targeted at everyone, not US citizens). Nevermind where the servers sit... might as well be in Canada, or Cuba.
> It was the French who were doing business with Iraq during the embargo. It was the French who gave Iraqi leaders passage out of Iraq during the war.
Would you mind substantiating your opinion with facts? Real facts, not plausible, but absolutely unfounded might-be-might-nots, like the invisible weapons of mass destruction.
> The USA is a country founded on freedom
No longer.
> The USA is a world leader
> and we will continue to be a world leader
The United States' militant insistence on that is the cause for much of the world's current woes. If the US so desperately need to triumph and celebrate themselves, i see no problem with it; but please do it at home and leave the world at peace.
You have fallen to a misconception... nobody envies the US' wealth, but many fear the US' meddling. The open aggressiveness, the readiness to ignore international treaties and conventions, war, bombs, foreign intelligence, you get the picture.
Sebastian
> I would bet that slashdot.org is based in the US. Why don't you do us a favor and stay off this US website?
.org website, not .us.
I believe Slashdot is a
> God I hate racists...
I hate all the hate.
On the contrary, I believe there are people who want to do the right thing, just because. Maybe I'm an idealist.
> The EU is just pissed because the US doesn't follow their orders.
:-(
Umm. I think you confused something, because it's rather the other way around. The US pushed like mad for a war, but still nobody agreed. Now they're doing it on their own, like a banana republic.
> Maybe so,but you/they would be left in the cultural dark-ages!!
You think your culture is innately superiour to other cultures, and therefore you must spread it all over the world? Sounds... fanatic. No culture is "better" than any other, just different.
> Face it you love the USA while hating the USA!
I do neither. But I'm disgusted at their current militarism, love for war and disregard for international law and agreements.
Sebastian
> It was an act of war.
> Committed by specially trained foreigners supplied and actively protected by a foreign government (Taliban.)
I think a terrorist act is not an act of war unless some country _officially_ did it. You can't be in a state of war with John Doe, can you?
Of course a terrorist act might be considered a reason for war, which is something completely different.
> Iraq, under Saddam, has violated at least 14 UN sanctions and what did the UN do to about this, ask for more time, so he can violate more?
:).
I believe UN actions on Iraq have been _effective_ - Iraq hasn't been a danger for anyone during the last 12 years. Nevermind many of the resolutions were only grudgingly or not at all adhered to by Iraq. It worked. Iraq was under control.
When all of a sudden someone in Washington got bored and decided to put pressure on Iraq and try to find a pretext for war. What was the urgent reason to attack Iraq? None, really. Things were working out just fine.
> And simply as a side thought I can not understand Americans who hate their country, tell me, why do they stay here?
Probably because they like the countryside, their home, their family, their jobs, they just don't like the crazy politicians and the fanatical patriotism and all the bizarre stuff going on over there. But I'm just guessing. Go ask an American.
Sebastian
> Then they SHOULDN'T! They've been warned enough, God knows.
;-)) and children and all, I believe. What did an arab do to you that you hate the entire ethnic group so much?
Huh? I meant, that's why there are weapon caches in unsuspicious places in cities. Because Iraqi (paramilitary) forces are furced to undertake urban warfare instead of open field combat, in which they wouldn't stand a chance.
I don't really understand, what point you are trying to get across regarding palestinians. I think Al Jazeera is not as fanatical as you think - but it's also true that an Islamic TV broadcaster necessarily has a different point of view than a US broadcaster. Different cultures, different views, different propaganda. I think Al-Jazeera is rather objective when compared to other venues of information (US Military, Iraqi State Television).
But your insistence "Arabs = evil" is worrying. You know, that really is racism. There are many "arabs", most of them moderate, nice people with wives (maybe several
I tend to get the impression that you are no less fanatical than the ones you're defaming.
> And when Israel finally stands up and defends itself against this kind of aggression, they are castigated.
What has Israel to do with it? I thought it was America vs. Iraq we were talking about. Lie over and die?? For me??
Anyway, Israel vs. Palestinians can neither be solved by terrorist attacks nor by sending tanks to tear down villages. How about peaceful dialogue? Autonomy/independence of occupied area?
> Speaking of which, if bloodshed was really to be avoided, why didn't your man Hussain admit his weapons after 12 years of inspections?
_My_ man? I think you're confusing something there.
I guess because there really aren't any bio/chem weapons left? Nothing to admit?
> Isn't THAT illegal?
How about innocent until proven guilty?
Sebastian
> Don't you read the news?
I guess I read other news. The last thing I heard about the Kurds in northern Iraq was that they were suspicious, since they would love to fight for their independence, but according to US/UK plans, would not become independent. Turkey even has sent or is sending troops into northern Iraq to control a potential Kurdish break-away from Iraq.
An interesting article about the Kurds in Turkey and their stance on the war:
s to ry/0,7792,924026,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/
> You mean like Kurds in Iraq?
They don't actually welcome this war. They want independence, which they are not going to get, they don't want bombs and Turkish troops. You won't see a Kurd uprising in support of the American invasion.
Sebastian
> Stockpiling weapons in schools and hospitals is bad enough
:-(
Yes, it is bad. But Iraqis are in a desperate fight against superiour invaders. They cannot just walk out into the field and wait for the bombs to drop on them.
> - the chemical suits should give a further clue.
Maybe a clue. Everything but a proof.
Since you are comparing me to a conspiracy theorist, then why do you have to rely on little clues? I think if there had been proof of WOMD, the war would probably found world-wide acceptance.
Existence of WOMD is only certain in popular perception, but largely unobstrued by facts.
> Clearly, we're not dealing with nice people here.
During a war, people on both sides tend to cast aside niceness.
> Why would they lie about this stuff so strenuously?
How do you know they're lying? The argumentation has the fault that it relies on the truth of the conclusion. "Since Iraqis have WOMD, but say they haven't got any, they're lying. They must be hiding something, or why would they lie. Therefore, they have WOMD".
On the other hand, "reliable intelligence" from US and UK that was used to argue in favor of a war has actually been proven wrong in a lot of instances. UN weapons inspectors were given intelligence information, but found it to be inaccurate and misleading.
I wouldn't be too sure about who's lying...
> And what will all of you say when the WMD is found (and it will be eventually). What?
Then I will still say that the war was illegal, as it happened without legitimation. There was no hurry; inspections were proceeding remarkably well. The deaths of thousands of people could have been avoided, as well as the weakening of international law and the UN charter.
> That WE planted it?
I would not put it beyond the US to "overemphasize" or "misinterpret". It has in the past, especially while trying to find an internationally accepted justification for the war (it failed).
> To know that the world is a better place [...] I can bear that cost, can you?
But the cost is very high, and the world will not be a better place. Until a few weeks ago, it was generally accepted agreed upon by the civilized world that countries have no business waging war on another, except in self-defense, or by international consensus. Every country that violated that agreement had to face consequences.
Now the US itself is violating the UN charter, and the UN stands powerless. Even the nations that support the cause of the US government ought to oppose the means and uphold international law. But the US are the most powerful and in the past have also been one of the most "morally upright" members of the security council, wielder of veto powers. How could they possibly be the target of UN sanctions?
Thus, the world order the UN symbolizes has been significantly changed. To the worse. No matter how the war in Iraq ends, if weapons of mass destruction are found or not. The war itself never should have happened.
Sebastian
> You don't beleive the 3000 chemical/biological protective suits found in a hospital? The weapons and ammunition found in the hospital?? Why would a hospital need weapons?
Maybe they put them there in the hope the place wouldn't get bombed?? Duh... US forces have aerial superiority, so Iraqi forces try to negate that advantage by hiding stuff.
Chem/bio protective suits don't necessitate the existence of chem/bio weapons. You're confusing cause and effect. I'm quite certain US forces also carry protective suits with them. Every decent army does.
Sebastian
> Germany is a participant in this war. They are a prime military supplier to the Iraqis.
This is untrue. Much of Iraqi military equipment has been supplied by the US during the first Gulf War (Iraq vs. Iran) or by the Soviets (btw, why, if Iraq was US backed?) (Scud etc.). After 1991, the sanctions were in place.
> It is a might bit hypocritical to affect an anti-war stance whilst you are busy making hay from it, I think.
Please, support your allegations with facts!
> If the Germans were true pacifists, their government would shut down the german arms industry instead of banning video games.
Arms exports from Germany are very strictly regulated. Even allied countries such as Turkey have occasionally had problems with strict regulations in Germany, since they could not guarantee the weapons would not be used against internal opposition (Kurds).
Sebastian
> The US has been in the most desirable position of not having a war on their home soil, with two notable exceptions in 1941 and 2001.
I think it is dangerous to blur the distinction between a crime and a war. The destruction of two buildings by civilians who kidnapped a plane was not an act of war, but an act of terror. A crime of the worst sort.
Sebastian
> They just chose their side and fight for the arabs as best they currently can.
I think you suffer from a misconception there.
Germany definitely is against the war because the Germans are against the war. There have been hundreds of thousands of people marching and protesting against the killing of innocents and the breaking of international law. Peace movement in Germany has been traditionally strong, at least since the 1970s-80s. German constitution even forbids war that is not in direct self-defense or direct defense of an ally.
Sebastian
> I hate to break it to you, but some of those "invisible" weapons they're not supposed to have were shot at Kuwait.
There has been no evidence of a chemical, biological or nuclear payload in the area where the missiles struck. Conventional missiles not exceeding a range of 150km were not banned; if you take a look at a map, you can easily see that Kuweit and Iraq are bordering countries. How do you know the type of the missile that was shot, btw? Didn't they explode?
> Also, it's kinda amazing that Saddam Hussein is telling his troops they can use chemical weapons (Al Jazeera along with American stations are all confirming that.)
Wow, you speak Arabian? If you don't, please don't quote Al-Jazeera.
I have only heard that primarily in American media, there have been rumors of a mysterious red line drawn around Baghdad, upon the crossing of which chemical weapons are to be used. I don't believe the rumors. We shall see.
Sebastian
> Have you read the part where they said they were a "liberating" force for occupying Korea and much of China?
:).
I was actually talking about German history textbooks. I don't know Japanese
Sebastian
> The U.S. has stated over and over that the oil of Iraq is for the Iraqi people.
And since the oil is for the Iraqi people, they must export lots of it FAST to finance the rebuilding of their country, thus lowering oil prices world wide and giving US economy a boost as a certainly not intended side effect. And of course there will be licences to non-Iraqi companies to make use of all that oil, incidentally a lot of American ones, like the one, Haliburton I think, that was once led by a certain Mr. Cheney, or the ones that paid for Mr. Bush`s campaign.
Of course it's not only about the oil. It`s also about American hegemony and all the paranoia and fear that the collapse of two buildings in New York has induced. I believe that many American believe in the myterious WOMD that are only half a world away and thus endanger their precious suburban idyll. Well, that`s paranoia, it`s your right to have it, but it`s not your right to start a war based on it.
> Iraq didn't even account for the WoMD that we know they had after 1991.
I think Iraq _said_ they had been destroyed. How exactly can they account for their destruction in a way that you would believe it? Should they make up proof?
> If you seriously believe the Iraqi scientist didn't know the range of their own missiles, you are very naive.
An aberration from the allowed range of up to few dozen miles when shot without payload and guidance should certainly have been avoided, but equally certainly is not a reason for war. The missiles were being destroyed when the US invaded. Leaves one to wonder: what exactly do the US want.
BTW, between the US and Iraq, there is quite a big ocean. Missiles that exceed their allowed range of 150km by a few dozen more still don`t hit America. No justification at all for "self-defense".
Why focus on Iraq at all? Because it`s rather a subjective thing, paranoia and hatred, than one guided by objective reasoning.
> Read their history textbooks and then tell us that.
Well, I've read them. They manage to convey the notion that war is a rather negative thing, and stress modern developments like foundation of the UN. I think I remember that an American statesman's ideas (Roosevelt) of a regulated peaceful coexistence of countris were very important for the foundation of the UN and UN charter banning offensive war.
Sebastian
> Yeah, the UN would hate to have to do anything as ridiculous as actually enforcing their resolutions
The inspections were working flawlessly, no WoMD were found. No resolution called for a regime change.
What exactly are the US trying to enforce?
> How many people have to die under Saddam's bootheels before France decides that taking care of this problem is more important than their oil contracts?
Well, how many people have to die under the American bootheels, until American oil barons have all the Iraqi oil contracts they covet?
You cannot arbitrarily invade countries of whom you say they treat their citizens unfairly. Humanitarian concerns have not played a great part in the war debate, and very few people are as naive as to believe that the architects of this war are concerned with the Iraqi people.
I don't even believe that since 1991 there have been any atrocities that would have justified the atrocities of war. Furthermore, nobody asked for intervention. Even the Iraqi opposition is very wary concerning America and its motives.
Sebastian
> But now that the USA is threatened, rather than some cute ethnic minority, oh no we musn't defend ourselves.
How exactly are you threatened? A tiny country the other side of the world has MYSTERIOUS INVISIBLE weapons of mass destruction they might use against you in the far future? Ooh boy, now that justifies a war.
On the other hand, using the same reasoning, the US has been a very noticable threat to a number of countries, as they really own state of the art weapons of mass bombing and the necessary means to get them anywhere. So, by your logic, for example a North Corean pre-emptive attack on the US would be justified?
I think not. By symmetry, US pre-emptive attacks are equally unjustified. This is not self-defense, this is aggression.
> We did EXACTLY THE SAME THING in the late 90's with Kosovo
At least there were people in Kosovo who _asked_ you to intervene. I still don't think intervention (which caused massive refugee crisis and killed lots of people on both sides) was justified. And yes, there _were_ Serbian children bombed, as well as Albanian children and lot. It was a mistake to bombard Kosovo.
Sebastian
> > Prosperity and economic growth is possible without killing people.
> How?
The same way it is possible when killing people, just leave out the killing bit. Human bodily fluids are of no vital importance in any industrial process, thus you need not extract them. Period.
Switzerland has led a remarkably peaceful existance while sustaining a rather high standard of living...
Why do you think war is necessary for long-term economic stability?