Easy Company Medic Eugene Roe

My views on the War Against Iraq

Easy Company Medic Eugene Roe: Off-Topic Posts: My views on the War Against Iraq

Please visit a sponsor and help keep this site free

By Philippines (Pacificpearl) (192.169.39.71) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 03:42 am:

No man is perfect. And I say no country, or leader is perfect either. Some would say Bush wages war against Iraq for its oil only, or for the American interests, or for the ghosts of September the 11th. But I fear for America, and thousands and millions of lives that will be caught in this God-awful stench that we call World War III.

I’m deeply grateful for the Americans regardless of what other Anti-Americans say, and not just because of Spam and Britney Spears. But their people, (soldiers such as the Easy) have shed blood for freedom and for a cause not many have appreciated (such as Vietnam), thinking(again) that it was for their own greater glory (and interests). After all, it wasn’t their war anyway. They just came to assist. The only war they have reason to fight for was the Bombing of Pearl Harbor. Other than that, Why should they drag their American asses halfway across the world to liberate Saipan, hold positions in Guadalcanal and other missions of unimportance to a soldier with a family of three children? They can just let these countries to rot and be an empire of some other nations for all they care. But they were there-when we needed them most.

In the event of this impending war against the Middle East, many of you may not like what I’m about to say. I do not like the Muslims as much as many of you here also don’t. I don’t like them not because they are different, not because they think we are pagans and worshipping the wrong deity. But I do not like the savage ones who shout "Allah hu akbar" and killing hundreds of innocent lives all for the name of Islam. (especially here in the provinces of Mindanao). But I know that not all Muslims are alike with their ways of thinking. Not all Muslims are barbarians, uneducated ignorant fools that will wage war for "Allah" or "Mohammed, peace be upon him". But they are still human beings. They deserve our respect. They are our brothers who have the right to live in this world.

How did this all started, I do not know, and maybe I was not even born that time. I’m not much fond of history but I can sense from your posts and your opinions here that maybe, just maybe, America has stepped on their toes, and maybe have gone a little too far, disrespecting their culture, blaspheming their mosques, infiltrating their minds with American ways that are not acceptable with their ways of living. Why not respect that? But no, somehow, someone has to take control of Iraqi oil and think that it should not be the Iraqis. Yes, we need the oil. The whole world needs the oil that abundantly flourishes only on the soils of a place called Iraq. But is oil worth the lives of not just American soldiers but Arabs, English, French, Soviets and all those who are going to be pitted for this cause that no one ever knew how and why it started? or whose fault it was in the first place?

Hopefully, America will not strike Iraq or there will be hell to pay! And this is also to hope that Iraq or any Middle Eastern country will not do anything foolish to give the U.S. or the U.N. reasons for striking them hard, they do not know what hit them.

No one deserves to die an awful death. Not the ones who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11. Not the ones being killed for one nations' glory and wealth. It all has to stop somewhere. I just fear Nostradamus' prediction of the inevitable. But when that time comes, God be with us all. (InshAllah)

By Aya (Aya) (165.21.83.198) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:04 am:

Wow. Somehow deep in my heart I know you've dared spoken aloud for a lot of people out there. Amen to that.

"Amen." Ponder over this word alone. Who pronounces it "ay-men", and who pronounces it "aah-meen"? We don't have to think twice to figure out who says "amen" in which way. It doesn't change the meaning of the word, does it.

My response should not be directly linked with the post above. I just feel like adding my 2 cents' worth.

This evening I was on the way to my bus stop from the Arts' Library and chose to walk past the Cenotaph, which happens to be one of the many War Memorials in Singapore. When there is still light, depending on what day of the week it is, one either sees tourists gathered around the Cenotaph with their tour guides, or teenaged boys engaged in extreme skateboarding. At night you either still see the skateboarders there, or just lovebirds sitting in the shadows on the steps of the Cenotaph.

Just now I saw none of them, save for one solitary figure kneeling before the inscription of the memorial. I'm short-sighted but can't wear my spectacles when on the road (they make me nauseous); curiosity pushed me nearer to this man. It was an elderly gentleman. His tear-streaked face shocked me, although he wasn't particularly sobbing and his shoulders were not shaking from whatever emotional tidal wave was washing over him. I could tell he was a proud man.

I didn't realise I was standing there with my mouth agape, I still don't know how long I'd stood there watching him. He got up to his feet at length, touched the wall before him, stepped back, and bowed deeply in respect. As he turned to leave, he stopped briefly on having caught me staring at him. I don't know who was more embarrassed. Me for getting caught robbing him of his privacy to mourn, or him for letting himself be caught in his grief. I just nodded at him. Surprisingly he broke silence with Japanese-accented English.

"You ... Singaporean."

I nodded.

"I sorry. Forgive me. Forgive my people. Please."

I didn't know what to say.

"More blood to pour (he probably meant 'will be spilled'). Iraq, America. Human. Never learn."

He sighed, and I found it in myself to ask him wherefrom he hailed.

"Nagasaki."

Where one of the A-Bombs had hit during WWII.

He patted his chest gently. "Old man. Die soon. No die yet. I come here, honour my enemy. From old Syonan-To (the Japanese re-named Singapore 'Syonan-To' during the Japanese Occupation here). Who (is) really my friend."

He smiled at me, tapped his watchface, waved goodbye, and headed in the direction of another war memorial nearby.

I reached home, logged on, and found this post in this website.

Amen / Ameen.

Aya

By Jwicks (Jwicks) (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 12:04 pm:

Nice story Aya. We are all brothers.

By Sue Wright (Swright) (163.179.171.135) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 03:35 pm:

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.145.148) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 05:26 pm:

Aya,

I have read of the horrors that were suffered under the Japanese after the fall of Singapore. I have seen with my own eyes veterans crying for what they witnessed.

With regards to Singapore itself, I have never known anything like you have just posted. I just wish that veterans from that time would read it, too.

One of the things that we are all allowed to draw hope from are our universal concepts of nobility and justice. Sure, these concepts may vary from nation to nation, but on the whole, their meaning strikes the same chord.

Many thanks for posting this tale and many blessings to that humble, but most noble man, and his family.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Marigold Papa (Marigold) (203.160.183.79) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 09:38 pm:

Aya, that was truly a very touching story. thank you for sharing that with us

gold

By Aya (Aya) (165.21.83.250) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 10:21 pm:

Heya.

No prob at all. For me personally my thanks must go to Pacific Pearl for that timely post and thus helping keep things in perspective for the rest of us. I felt compelled to share my encounter with the Japanese veteran with all in this site, but didn't quite know how to begin, which thread to post it on. Especially if I were to quote what that Jap veteran had so thoughtfully said to me; he'd used only 5 words to express something of great impact. "Iraq, America. Human. Never learn." To me, it was seriously not a matter of pointing fingers at all or anything like that. It was simply a modern example of what he'd seen in his time, in his younger days when he once served in the Japanese Imperial Army. I mean, who is to know what he was thinking when he'd said that, but instinct told me that was all he'd meant when he'd said it. He'd never specifically mentioned he had been a military personnel, but he'd pointed out City Hall and the Supreme Court across the road from the Cenotaph and the last thing he'd said to me before he walked away was, "See. I there. Surrender... (struggled for English words? - face lightened up) ... 1942. 1942."

City Hall was one of the locations where the Japanese had signed their surrender. Then softly he'd added, "Friend (patted his chest) ... hara kiri." I gathered he'd had a comrade who was too ashamed of the surrender? For disappointing his Emperor? Or for heinous crimes committed during the Japanese Occupation? That he'd turned to suicide by way of hara kiri.

Damn my imagination, but the moment he breathed those words I thought I heard bombs dropping and reverberating all around me and screams. Even the sound of a blade hitting bone to severe head from torso. Decapitation. The old man had winced a little right there and then, probably from a physical (or spiritual?) ache, so ... DAMN MY IMAGINATION!!! The most critical part of a small conversation I'd had with him and gut feeling told me I might step on toes around here if I were to recount it word for word. Throughout the entire journey home I kept hearing his deep hoarse voice, and the more I felt the urge that all here must be told of this encounter. I don't know. Somehow it may not seem much. It's probably not very significant to anyone else. But inner voice told me to share. Just share. Great. The more I didn't know how to start. So thank the stars for Pacific Pearl's thoughts up there.

The Cenotaph has had a permanent place deep in my heart ever since my parents first brought me there when I was about 3 or 4 yrs old. Never am sure why. It's very near a National landmark, the Merlion statue. I stand at a certain angle and I can see the Merlion, the Cenotaph, the City Hall, the Lim Bo Seng war memorial... I tried sleeping on yesterday's experience and this morning I woke up kicking myself real hard in the behind.

For not having asked the Japanese veteran his name. For not making the effort to be acquainted with him. He had a cough that hacked nearly the energy out of him, even if he had strode off in the brisk manner of a young soldier with a purpose. "Old man. Die soon."

No die yet, old man. I'm going to scour that area during whatever free time I've got over the next few days to look for him. My office is just 10 mins' bus ride from the Cenotaph and the other war memorials there. I hope to find him before work, during lunch, after work. I just hope he hasn't moved on to war memorials elsewhere across the island. Wish me luck.

Aya

By Marigold Papa (Marigold) (203.160.183.79) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 10:47 pm:

That's so sweet of you Aya. It sounds exciting. If i were in your place i would do the same thing and look for him. Lotsa luck Aya

gold

By Philippines (Pacificpearl) (192.169.39.70) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 02:05 am:

Nice one Aya, there was an incident also here in Corregidor where one of the bloodiest fights ever took place. It also served for a memorial for Americans and Filipinos who died in the war. Me and my friends were looking at old canyons and buildings and stuff. IT was really eerie like a ghost town. But a lot of tourists and nationals were there just to unwind. WHen we noticed an old Jap with an orderly hugging everyone he meets, crying , going down on his knees and kissing the feet of every Filipino he gets in touch with. endlessly bowing and bowing... Curious enough, we went to him, asking what was wrong. He embraced me and said something in Jap that I do not understand. His orderly translated to us "He is very sorry, they are all so sorry..." I just hugged him back... That incident just moved me to tears. Imagine such humility, sorrow and regret for things that shouldnt have happened.

By Joshua Eggleston (Jegg9032) (24.64.104.132) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 03:55 am:

While I will agree that Saddam needs to be ousted there are several issues which would suggest against a war with Iraq. While I am American and do support George W. Bush I feel that war with Iraq would definately be against our best interest for a few reasons.

1. The U.S. and Western Europe would be considered "Christian" cultures. Therefore what would happen once Iraq is taken over. There is not one Islamic person in Iraq that would support an American occupation. It worked in World War II because Germany was of relatively the same culture that the rest of the Western world. In a sense a war with Iraq would be a war against all Islamic extremists who are absolutley insand. I feel that it is a war that we cannot win. What would happen is someone would be appointed power in Iraq that harbors some of the same feelings as Saddam. It will just become a vicious cycle.

2. I will be the first to admit that we in North America and Western Europe live wonderful lives. However one must take this lifestyle with a grain of salt. Currently less than 5% of the world's population controls over 50% of the world's resources. This is why many people in the world Islamic or not dislike the U.S. We are faced with the greater issue of whether or not our earth can support human life for centuries to come. For example, if the world's most populated country (China) were to have every individual adopt a lifestyle similar to those of middle class Americans (SUV's, energy and water use, calorie consumption, and garbage disposal) It would create over three times more use of resources that our earth can support.

Therefore, Saddam needs to be ousted by his own people. We need to promise support for these people in the Muslim world and help to economically develop these poorer parts of the world. However we must re-examine our own use of the earth's biosphere.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.199.71) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 04:19 pm:

Good points, Joshua.

I feel that too much emphasis is often stressed on the issue of religion, however. As far as my information is aware, Saddam is in no way an extremist. Hence the cool relationship with Iran, next door. One of his closest aides is a even a christian.

Iraq under Saddam has been the best of a bad situation as many did not want to see another fundamentalist state in the area. Saddam has ensured that it didn't happen but yet again, at a price. There are a number of nations where one can draw comparisons with this. However, previously the issue was communism rather than Islamic fundamentalism.

Saddam will use whatever tools he feels will fit the job and be a "man for all seasons". He is as wily as a fox. Time and time again he has shown his resourcefulness in the face of economic, political and military pressure. He has his own people so cowed or in his spell that they lay their lives down for him, time and time again.

Yes, it would be nice to save us a lot of effort and hope that his own folks will rise up against him. But it didn't happen in the time of the Gulf War, so why should it happen now?

My main concern is the scenario of victory. We win. So what? We've won the war. How do we propose to win the peace? If one wants to look at world hotspots who have and continue to have input from the west, such as Palestine or Northern Ireland, we've not made too much of an impressive diplomatic or mediating showing yet, have we? I have seen no lasting formulas emerge yet and I'm not too sure if the wealthy nations will wish to sponsor yet another emerging state into competition with them. I'm not even sure if any of us are willing to shoulder such an economic burden?

The only thing that is for certain is that a lot of folks could suffer, but both leaders are quite prepared to shed your blood to preserve their political standing.

If Saddam represents such a threat to peace, how come his neighbours haven't been stung into action against him yet? After all, it is they who stand to suffer the most immediate effects. Or are they just hoping that we will do their dirty work for them?

Regards, Jonathan.

By Philippines (Pacificpearl) (192.169.39.71) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 06:36 am:

I have learned so much from this discussion folks. One thing that no one will ever learn in the four corners of a classroom as most of the students there are of the same age and would not majorly benefit much from the wisdom and experience(or lack thereof)from a populace of the same generation.

I'm really thankful I have found such website as informative and educational as this one. A diverse one at that as we of different cultures intermingle our own ideas, beliefs, fears and hopes.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (213.122.248.162) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:12 pm:

Hey, now THAT was a nice post!

Regards, Jonathan.

By Sergeant First Class Danny Autrey (Retiredarmy) (198.36.178.141) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 04:51 pm:

Sharon: I think some of them are enjoying the fact that Americans are once again realizing the extreme sacrafice that the men of WWII gave. Everyone likes to be remembered. From all I have read of these men, and having WWII era vets in my family, they still remember their friends and fellow soldiers. You do not live through what these men lived through and forget. It is truly a brotherhood. There is no brotherhood like the one where soldiers live in holes and survive death together. Those are not easily forgotten. You don't forget the loss of a close buddy. His face is with you always. You look back and wish you could talk to him again, just one more time.

In a sad example, my wife's uncle on her mother's side was injured in WWII. Shell shock they called it from a round hitting very close to him. He was injured, but never had a mind after that. He was around 20 years old when it happened. He died a couple of years ago, around 90 years old. He lived in a VA type hospital because he needed constant care. He survived 70 years without knowing who he was. Sad.

So, these gentlemen continue on, but what they lived through is still there. I still remember times from Vietnam. Not the way some guys have been reported to have suffered. A couple of years ago, the traveling Vietnam Veterans Wall came here. I went to see it and found a few names on it. One was a high school friend. Another, a second cousin. My emotions got to me when I saw my high school friend's name on that Wall. I saw several vets that broke down and cried like babies. So, yes, we all still remember. And, yes, it is painful sometimes.

God bless these gentlemen. They are fewer and fewer everyday. Soon, we will only have the great memories that they have brought to us. In a time like this, when the French are doing what they are now, I am very mad to know that these men fought to free those people, who apparently do not appreciate what these men did for them.

By Sharron McElhinney (Sharron) (159.134.56.246) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

Hi Danny,
Thanks for your insights. The great memories of these men indeed will live on for generations. I've just read Viktor E. Frankl's book "Man's Search for Meaning". He was a concentration camp survivor in WW2 and he wrote about how he and others endured the suffering of the whole experience. It's well worth reading.
Regards, Sharron.

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.164.45) on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 11:48 am:

Danny,
I would find it rather hard to believe that the French people don't appreciate what these men did for them or what any of the other allied armies have done either. The big difference is that their country has gone through two world wars, on their soil. And in the second one, they were overrun, defeated and were occupied in a very short time.
Now, their "enemy" wasn't thousands of miles away and land locked by no fly zones, they were their next door neighbors, which made it fairly easy for an all out attack. And the French made a huge mistake by putting the brunt of their army underground, in the Maganot Line.
Now I could get into all the political mumbo jumbo of how imperitive it was to beat the Germans, because if they had of defeated the Russians and had of linked up with the Japs, then the axis armies would have had a strangle hold on the worlds economy, and so on and so on.
But, and this is the difference, and some may not like it, Saddam has no chance in hell of ever invading the U.S. He has no airforce to speak of, no Navy Aircraft carriers to park off your coastline with, no nuclear submarines situated around the world, which I might add are also filled with weapons of "mass destruction". Like I said, he's land locked and surrounded. He cannot move any aircraft without being spotted and shot down. Now, am I saying that he's a real swell guy? Definately not. But you have to realize that now you are the invaders, you are surrounding him and he is digging himself into his own Maginot Line, and alot of countries see the U.S having a strangle hold on the worlds oil reserves.
One problem which I might add is that this has the recipe to end up kind of like what is going on between Isreal and the Palastinians, nobody is going to forgive the other, or worse yet, forget.
I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and a peaceful solution can be found, for all of our sakes. Just remember, the U.S is Goliath, and the world is full of Davids.
Take care,
Steve L.

By Aspasia G. Comnas (Acomnas) (24.188.64.68) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:48 pm:

I think that the French can afford to be more patient in a search for a peaceful resolution -- they are not the intended target of any Iraqi or terrorist threat -- we are.

The situation today is not so very different from WW II. If evil is allowed to grow, the stakes in defeating it later will be much higher - as we learned with Hitler and the millions that were slaughtered.

By ryan langlois (208.199.125.66) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 03:18 pm:

We are a target of Iraq? since when?

i have no doubt that the man is a lunatic (sadam, not bush), but he is not a threat to the usa. he is more concerned with keeping power in his little part of the world than taking on a superpower. sadam is hardly a hitler. and if we really believed that he was evil and horrible and a threat why did we wait so long to get rid of him? why is now the time for regime change?

i say good for france and germany and all the others for having the balls to stand up to bush as he tries to bully his foreign policy on the world.

what bothers me most about the whole thing is not getting rid of sadam (kill him i say, he is a mass murder) but what about n. korea? what about all the other evil doers out there? what about a little place called china and it's gross history of human rights violations? or cuba? n. korea is very close to getting more nukes, and has a history of making big threats to get what it wants. why are we using force on them? could it be because iraq is some third world backwater that will be unable to put up a fight?

no one likes to loose a fight, but if bush really believed the propaganda he spews forth then he would be taking more action around the globe to truly promote freedom for all people, not just the easy fights, or for countries with rich resources.

By tome (192.28.2.17) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 07:08 pm:

Ryan:
Which way do you want it? You say Sadaam is not a threat, or hardly a Hitler. But the you want him killed because he's a "mass murder."

I'm not comprehending the logic of your arguement.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.168.102) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 01:25 pm:

I suppose part of the argument would be that Saddam does not pose an overt, direct threat to the nations that are thus far arrayed against him.

However, he has already proven to be a mass murderer of the Kurdish people on his borders whom he has no love for. He could have been finished off ten years ago but Bush Snr and Co. didn't have a mandate for that and thus they stopped short. This time it appears that they're not bothered about a mandate from the rest of the world, anyway.

Another point that may have changed is the Arab situation. Granted, Iraq is not a fundamentalist state but it can play the Muslim card anytime it likes. After what happened ten years ago it's plain that Saddam could and most probably would. As much as most of the Arab world doesn't exactly hold Saddam close to their heart but there's the threat that Israel might get embroiled in the situation and then we'd see a different game altogether.

Another Arab factor would be the situation with Iraq's neighbours, Iran. Saddam has ensured that the fundamentalist tide did not swamp his country. Reports from Iran recently suggest that there is some kind of liberal movement stemming from such areas as places of higher learning there. So right now, the situation in Iran has never looked more favourable for change in Iraq at the risk of a fundamentalist government being installed.

From the rest of the world's point of view it's just a matter of convincing them that a war against Saddam would be justified. Something that the Bush jnr administration has so far failed to do.

Regards, Jonathan.

By bigjohn (216.12.59.253) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 07:03 pm:

There is evil in the world today that evil is gathering strength. But today the UN is trying for "Peace in Our Time" and failing just as Chamberlien failed when he came back from gGermany before WW2. Sadamm Hussein is evil incarnate today...if not for what he does to his own people....if not for his support of terrorist causes......why not for Scott Speicher?

I have been to war. I know the horror.Vietnam was not a war that should have been supported I agree.I fought there to the derision of my fellow aAmericans when Icame home.
I hate war and the idea of young men going to be maimed as I but I also have a 10 year old son and what kind of world wll he have with Sadamm lurking ?

By Marigold Papa (Marigold) (203.160.183.79) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 10:15 pm:

What is the world coming to huh? there's no safe place anymore

gold

By tome (192.28.2.17) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 10:42 pm:

I echo the remarks made by bigjohn. His reference to Chamberlain is right on the money. Appeasement didn't work with Hitler, and it won't work with Hussein. We need to learn and remember the lessons that history teaches us.

By Wow (200.193.226.28) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 11:21 pm:

Dont compare the situation that we have on iraq with the situation that we had with hitler, its so different, . I dont know what the american press is doing there, but i can guess that is a big propaganda. . First, saddam is in power because the united states putted him there. Now he is a threat? And if he is such a big threat why didnt the usa stopped him in the first war? Who do you think is the biggest threat to the united states, saddam or the dictator in north korea? And why suddenly saddam is a big threat? He was not a big threat for 12 years now he is again? The comunism is praticaly over now you have to find another excuse to enter other countries ? And do you think that the people from Muslim countries like USA? They hate usa the only ones who like are the ones with money and power , and i can only guess who gives them money.

By what? (200.193.226.28) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 11:29 pm:

And yes , history can teach us a lot, and if you study it a little bit you can see that an attack and an ocupation by the usa in iraq can be a bad thing to the united states.

By what? (200.193.226.28) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 11:31 pm:

And yes , history can teach us a lot, and if you study it a little bit you can see that an attack and an ocupation by the usa in iraq can be a bad thing to the united states. I think it would be easyer to build an terrorist camp in the region

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.5.139) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 02:27 pm:

"Appeasement is like feeding the crocodile, hoping that it eats you last". Churchill.

Thanks to the "Wild Bill" site for that.

As much as Saddam is no way as threatening to the world as Hitler was one could hardly doubt that they're cast from similar moulds.

If the war happens Saddam will be defeated. He has little capability of striking at enemy resource centres of production. On the other hand, we could smash his.

Two sticking points come to mind:

1) How long would it take to achieve this and would the public opinion support it? The spectre of Vietnam still hangs over the US conscience. Witness the joy and relief of winning in Grenada, (even though it was a foregone conclusion).

2) Saddam is out of the picture. What do we propose happens then? Democratic elections with the risk of Islamic fundamentalism taking hold?
My money's on some other tinpot toadie being installed, more to the US' liking. Again, at a risk of him going mad with the power.

Decisions, decisions.....

Jonathan.

By ryan langlois (208.199.125.66) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 03:04 pm:

tome,

you are right, there is a contradiction. my point is that IF bush truly believed in his words about taking freedom to all people and smooting the evil doers, then the usa would have a a moral obligation to strike at all dictatorships in the world. cuba, n. korea, china, several countries in africa, ect...

as arrogant as is sounds, i do believe that america has an obligation to bring the freedoms we enjoy to other countries. it is a responsibility that comes from have power.

why did we have to wait until we were attacked to free the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban. in my book they were one of the most evil organizations in the world. if we had never been attacked would we have allowed the evil that stifled the people of that country to continue? i think that sadly the answer is yes.

the ruling party in iran? they ban tv, music, free speech, and keep women from being educated. why aren't we at their border, ready to free the people?

what formula was applied that said sadam was more evil than these people?

i don't have a problem with killing sadam, or setting up a democracy and freeing the Iraqi people, what i have a problem with is why fighter jets are dogging US planes over international waters, and we can do do is file a protest at n. korea while a country like iraq which does not posses the ability to shoot down our planes (they keep shooting, but really they have only gotten a couple of our planes, and those are considered lucky shots) gets 300,000 troops outside it's border.

my problem is that i don't feel the sense of righteousness or justice as the reason bush wants the war with sadam. it is a hallow cause that i cannot and will not rally behind. and i think that point is showing in the international community, bush has yet to make a case for war. no one but cheney and rumsfield and whoever else is in the inner circle at the white house seem to be on board with this plan. we can't even bribe turkey with 15 billion dollars to support us.

ryan

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 10:08 pm:

history lesson
Hitler tried to annex a "historical" part of Germany - the Sudetanland(sp?) he was not stopped and as a result, WWII ensued
Hussein tried to annex a "historical" part of Iraq - Kuwait and was stopped by a coalition of forces led by the US - had we not stopped him, Saudi Arabia and other countries would have followed - when he eventually would target Isreal, WWIII would have followed and many more would have died
Germany was trying to develop the atomic bomb and only was stopped by the fact that the allies won the war - could you imagine what Hitler would have done with an nuclear weapon?
We know that Saddam is trying to get nuclear weapons and the only way to stop him is through force - like Hitler, he used gas on his own people, do you think he would not use it against us or Isreal - do you think he would not give anthrax to terrorists?
and to the idiots that say this is propoganda - I guess we faked the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait - perhaps that was all special effects? Anthrax, and nerve gas were found as well - did we make that up? I think the American press has bent over backwards(or should I say leftwards) to show the anti war sentiment both here and internationally. the Propoganda is on the no-war side.
Final history lesson. The French prior to WWII built a magnificent defensive bulwark called the Maginot line. It was virtually invulnerable to a direct attack. The problem is that they stopped the line at the border of Belgium, a neutral country. If the Germans had "played by the rules" they would have not attacked through Belguim. Guess what - they cheated and the Maginot line was useless - worse it was a monument to stupidity. We have not learned our lesson - Inspections, like the Maginot line are only effective if the other side "plays by the rules". Wake up - it is 1939 all over again - are you going to sit behind the "Maginot Line" again and hope he doesn't use the weapons or give them to terrorists?
I am not a French basher - I would be paid in pounds today and be under a silly monarchy if it wasn't for them, but I think we should learn from history - the appropriate analogies (Viet Nam was a civil war and we should have stayed out - Iraq supports terrorism - they aren't the Vietnamese)

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 10:28 am:

I'm totaly against a World War ( Probable Bush woudn't mind because of his scream for help to all the other country's) I know enough of World Wars now I've seen BoB and i came to the conclusion we don't really need an other one.

I'm not againt getting rid of Terrorism, of Bin Laden or Sadam, but there is no need to involve so many country's and innocent people who could get killed. I just don't hope this will become a war, because innocent people get killed in war and I, neither so many of us, would want that to happen. If it just wasn't that difficult i would have said, get a sniper, pay him a lot of money, and tell him to get Sadam killed. Iraq is a free country yet again. But there is terrorosm and BinLaden and Al-Quadia... This could get rough if America pulls thru...

All i really hope is, that the Iraqi people can have a peacefull, joyfull life, that there will be no war.

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.69.27) on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 02:15 pm:

(to the tune of if you're happy and you know it..)
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's all the proof we need,
If they're not there, they must be there,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.134.135) on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 05:32 pm:

Now that was class!

Re: "History Lesson", sorry to be pedantic but it was Hitler invading Poland that started World War II. He thought that his enemies to be were bluffing as the German forces were not really ready for war.

Shall I drop a nuke? Well, it's never stopped me before and this is a biggy!

I find it totally ironic that for once the USA is ready for a possible international conflict. Let's face it, it was slow to engage the more serious international threats and moral crusades of 1914 and 1939 Germany, wasn't it? To many who belong to the frontline nations it looked like the USA was content to let them exhaust themselves before America acted. What's the situation now a case of? Third time lucky?

Regards, Jonathan.

By Tom Engquist (Tome) (192.28.2.17) on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 06:36 pm:

Jonathan: We were "slow to engage" in WWII and faulted for it. Now,you find it "ironic that for once that the USA is ready for a possible international conflict." Which way do you like it, disengaged or ready? Hard to do both; we just can't get it right. Sort of like being "under sexed, under paid and under Eisenhower."

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 02:33 pm:

Jonathan
The Sudatenland was annexed prior(mar of 39) to the invasion of Poland(sep of 39) - in 1938 - Sep to be exact, Chamberlain met with Hitler in Munich -
From another site -
"Chamberlain essentially sacrificed Czechoslovakia on the altar of appeasement. In exchange for the Sudatenland, Hitler promised to guarantee the new Czech borders. Eduard Benes immediately resigned, and Czechoslovakia would not be guaranteed. Parts of the country were broken off by Poland and Hungary, and on March 15, 1939, German troops entered Prague. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist.

A Czech and Slovak brigade was set up in Poland and fought the Germans the following September. Benes fled to London and set up a government in exile after the invasion of Poland"

Although there was not considered an "invasion", it was a military action and I would argue that this is the first real step in WWII

The US was often called "The Reluctant Belligerent" (which is a good book I read in my history class at school) and the title is accurate. The point I am trying to make is that we collectively should learn from history - the fact is that we(the US)were wrong not to act sooner in 1938-39. We were not ready for WWII and in our first few battles(Pearl Harbor, Kasserine Pass) many Americans lost their lives due to that lack of preparation.
Bin Ladin and company attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and we did virtually nothing. The result was 9/11.
Will innocent people die when we invade Iraq? Yes, that is very sad, but more will die if we don't. How many millions would be alive today if we had stopped Hitler in 1938?
We must stop Hussein now and we will. We must stop Bin Ladin and we will. After that, Iran and Korea will realize that it is in their best interests to stop supporting Terrorism and exporting weapons. If they don't, they will be next. This war will last as long as there are countries in the world that support the targeting of innocents, which is quite different from the unfortunate deaths of innocents that happens in any war.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.25.188) on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 03:32 pm:

I like your sentiments, Tom. Unfortunately I find a difference between being ready for action and actually starting it.

Michael, as I said, the invasion of the Sudetenland did not start WW II. Continuing German aggresion, namely the invasion of Poland was the breaking point. If I remember my history rightly, the sentiments of Chamberlain re: the poor Czechs were along the lines of "how can we care and support a nation of which we know very little about?". That's precious.

Permit me to once again play devil's advocate re: this war that will continue until there is an end to countries who support the targetting of inocents. Does this mean that the USA will turn on itself? The exploits of the CIA in latin America make good scandal but I'll come much closer to my home. Does the Bush Administration propose to outlaw "Noraid" and lose the Irish vote? After all those folks in N. Ireland who do target civilians have done so with an enormous amount of US dollars being donated to them in order to further their terror purposes. Or is this situation different as the likes of the IRA are deemed "freedom fighters" in vast portions of the US population?

Regards from a confirmed political cynic, Jonathan.

By yeah (200.163.13.8) on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 06:05 pm:

Do you know what i am most scare off? If the united states doesnt respect the UN , the united states can atack anyone by saying that is defending the american people. Today is IRAQ. Tomorow can be anyone. I guess the united states will do the same thing iraq did . Atack with no reason and autorization from the UN. Cool! The US can do that , they have big guns.

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 08:34 am:

I think it's treu America can do whatever they want to do, It's one hell of a Nation and indeed they have got a lot of armor. I live in Holland, i don't know Bush that well, but if he wants to he could infade whole Europe and the EastCountrys like Afghanistan, Iran, Korea or Iraq. Because Bush HAS the power, and if he IS a mighty creep like some people say he is, it could be very dangerous.

I don't think it's smart to start a war because there would die very much people who are innocent. Anybody who lives in Iraq could get killed, but almost EVERYBODY who lives in Iraq hates Saddam Hoessein, they're just not allowed to say that, cus if they do one of the Al-Quada's will shoot them without regrets. They are innocent and the America's haven't done anything either. I'ts just Bush who wants to get rid of some Terrorism, Osama and Saddam.

There is no need for bombing Iraq, neither to start a war, in my opinion.

By Tom Engquist (Tome) (192.28.2.17) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 09:10 am:

Jonathan and the rest of the doves:

We can dialogue all we want, but if the US decides to pull the trigger, they'll do it. What surprises me more is how stupid, or arrogant,Iraq's military must be. They must know that they will get their behinds kicked worse than last time.

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.164.44) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 11:36 am:

Tom,
I am really surprised at the comment "arrogant".
The arrogance I have seen by the U.S. has been astounding. After all the recomendations by the weapons inspectors, after all that has been done, the Bush administration still calls it propaganda on Iraqs' part. And to top it all off, Bush has the balls to say that Irag is a "direct threat" to the U.S.. How, how is that country, which was beaten so bad after the Gulf War such a threat.Their armoured vehicles such as the T-54/55, BRDM'S, T-60's and so on are so worn out I would be very surprised if they can roll outside of Bagdad without breaking down. Needless to say they were worn out after the Iran, Iraq war anyways!! Some of the armchair experts here talk of the Anthrax and other nerve agents that they have. Well, who in the hell set these guys up in the first place, any takers???? The U.S. and Russia, the two world powers who were making millions on the sale of weapons of mass destruction. After all these years since the Gulf War, Iraq has been nothing more than a sore spot of unfinished business. Kuwait has not given you the resources that you want so lets make up a reason to pick on a little guy. Like you said, they must know they will get their behinds kicked worse than last time, and they probably will, then you can walk around and pound your chest and tell the world how great the U.S. is. Of course, Iraq is no challenge, they have no Navy to speak of, their Airforce has been chased out of the sky for the last 12 years, ground movement is impossible because they are being watched by satelite, and after all these years and sanctions that have almost decimated the young and old because of lack of proper food and medicine, they are still a threat!?!? Let me tell you something, if you back an animal into a corner and he has no way out, It's gonna fight back, not because it's stupid or arrogant, but beacuse it has no choice.
And as a last note, who is going to disarm the U.S. and all the other countries in the world with weapons of mass destruction?? Or is it an inherant right for you to be the only one to own them. Come to think of it, Adolph had the same idea. Is there a pattern forming here?? Looks that way.
Like I had stated before, your country is acting like Goliath, but the world is full of Davids.
This next little bit is for the "doves" in the group who would much rather see a peaceful solution. Major Winters spoke of lessons learned and he hoped to have passed them on to generatons in the future. Remember when he held the pistol in his hand and said that a German Officer had give it to him when he surrendered, and that it has never been fired, and will never be fired.
There was a reason for that statement, and the "doves" on this site know what it is. But unfortunately, some don't.
Sitting outside the realm of propaganda,
Steve L.

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.25.54) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 02:20 pm:

The problem with a war in Iraq is that Bush will not be able to contain it to that area as he desires. Instead, the various terrorist cells around the world will interpret the U.S invasion as being an attack on Islam and more civilians and soldiers will be killed around the world. Those in support of a war with Iraq must realise that the front line is everywhere, and Bush's actions will have dire consequences for those nations who strongly support the USA, namely Spain and my home nation the UK.
Let the UN continue the work they are doing, rather than support Powell and Bush's bullying tactics to try and blackmail the smaller security council members into voting for war. It's ironic that those in favour of war on this message board are the very same that seem to admire Band of Brothers, and yet miss the whole point of the series.

By Michael Tatu (216.249.97.191) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 02:36 pm:

it will all be over soon.

None of us should speak for Maj Winters - to take a statement that he never fired the German Pistol and imply that he would support the doves on this board is a stretch. When he needed to kill Germans to save lives at Normandy, he did it. I don't know what side of the Iraq questions he is on, but none of us should take anything in the series and use it to support either side.

I have tried to use larger lessons from History rather than indiviual experiences to support my view.
It is hard to respect the UN when they are unwilling to enforce their resolutions.
There is a clear and present danger from Iraq and it is not from their tanks - that was a ludicrous suggestion - the anthrax, vx and other chemical and biological agents that he has are highly portable and potent. Since he is not giving them up, he poses a threat - and it is immediate
People that fly airplanes in buildings would have no qualms about using weapons of mass destruction and they must be stopped. And they will be, by the US alone if need be.

By What? (200.163.13.211) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 03:20 pm:

Michael tatu, please tell me , has the united states showed ANY PROVE that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? NO!
And why cant the united states suport the work of the UN inspectors? For me the major resolution of the UN is PEACE not WAR . The us also didnt prove that IRAQ has conections with terrorism. Actualy the us hasnt proved nothing.

By Marcelo (200.163.13.211) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 03:24 pm:

There is something that i find a little bit strange. Shouldnt the US be after a guy named OSAMA? Well, the US is making a great effort to go after a guy name SADDAM HUSSEIN. Oh yes sure soon everything will be over and thousands will be dead right? There is nothing more stupid than war specialy when you have other ways.

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.143.37) on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 04:20 pm:

Michael,
Just one last thing you have missed in all of this. Who at this time is threatening anothers border? And what country doing the threatening has the largest resource for weapons of mass destruction, and are massing at this moment willing to use them??
As far as my point about Major Winters, I wasn't suggesting he is taking sides, I was simply stating that he has seen enough death and destruction in his life for all of us and that the, "lessons learned", is that there should be a better way than going to war.
This whole mess is going to get way out of control unless cooler heads prevail.
We see how things are escalating out of control in Isreal every day with suicide bombers and such.
And I fear that the same problems will arise in the U.S. as well.
Here's something to think about. The Germans could fight most Armies to a standstill, but the partisans were everywhere, inflicting heavy losses, and may I quote a line from a movie, "with extreme prejudice".

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.121.191) on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 11:32 am:

Hiya, this is Dove-Features.

I find some of the sentiments expressed a little bit unrealistic. The USA will win if it steamrollers into Iraq. No argument here. Hopefully it might rub out one more resource centre for terrorists, too. However, these folks who have the mentality and motivation to fly planes into buildings or blow themselves and a bus full of Isreali school kids to bits will still be out there.

The motivation is still there through a combination of interpretation of the Koran and extremist viewpoints (on all sides). There's a lot of folks that seriously don't like each other out there and there's even more folks who have to suffer for it. The resolve of Bush to give terrorism a good kicking is a narrow-minded and short term solution with little long-lasting effects. Those folks are still going to go around not liking each other even if Sherrif Bush is out there, walking the streets. They'll just wait their chance. In the words of the IRA, "You have to be vigilant always, we only have to be lucky once...."

I still await a response re: my last posting. Or I'll put it even plainer. For many years citizens of the US have funded a terror campaign in Northern Ireland which saw countless deaths of innocents and those in the British services at the hands of the IRA and INLA. Now the USA wants the British soldiers, people and the world for that matter to forget about all that and help them in a war against terrorism???

There's quite a few pictures out there and there's something wrong with all of them.

Regards, Jonathan.

By gary_nephil (147.8.39.196) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 11:51 am:

with over 100,000 soldiers out there ready for the war, it's pretty obvious that the battle is inevitable. the only thing i could do is to pray for the following people: the soldiers who risk their lives simply to fulfil the ambition of bush; innocent people of iraq who will have their lives sacrificed for building up the fame of bush; and the US and UK citizens whose lives are being put into risk because their president and prime minister are actively inviting more attacks for their own countries.
wish god would take special care for the paratroopers of 101 airborne division, among all the people that needs his blessings.

gary 11/3

By gary_nephil (147.8.39.196) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 11:52 am:

By Tom Engquist (Tome) (192.28.2.17) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 06:47 pm:

Steve L.

Forget arrogant, I'll stick with stupid.

gary 11/3
Don't forget to pray for those 3000 souls who perished on 9/11. Find a way to blame that on Bush. BTW, the 101 is all volunteers,ready to fight.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 03:18 pm:

Jonathan - you want a response re: the IRA - they should be hunted down as well, but the difference is that no one has reported any evidence that they are planning to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that could be exported and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands - and anyone in the USA that funds the IRA should be considered as supporting terrorism - I suspect their contributions have dropped dramatically since 9/11
Marcelo
We can do more than two things at once - Osama's days are numbered - absolutely no logic to that argument. And there is a way to avoid war and it ain't the Maginot Line of Inspections- it is called complete and unconditional disarmament
Steve
I know who is threatening the borders - it's the good old USA. You must be just about 12 because what you forgot to mention and what I was refering to before is - we didn't start this mess. Saddam didn't just threaten a border - he crossed it! And if he hadn't, we wouldn't be there right now. And if he hadn't developed weapons of mass destruction and shown he was willing to use them we wouldn't have any reason to overthrow him. He invaded, he agreed to disarm and we will make sure he does

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.0.53) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 04:10 pm:

Were you being sarcastic when you said 'the good old USA?'. You seem to have completely ignored the fact that the USA has the most weapons of mass destruction, and as this is so, why doesn't your nation start disarming too?
You also mention that the USA didn't start this mess. Well that is incorrect because it was the USA that supplied such people as Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (remember them??) and Osama Bin Laden in his certain Jihad against the USSR back in the 1980s. It really is a case of 'who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past'.
Ah well all this arguing we engage in is futile anyway, for Bush is going to invade whether he gets a UN resolution or not. The only reason he is willing to go through the UN process is to give the impression to the world that the USA is still a democratic 'peace-loving' nation. Bush will drag your nation into war and the wider consequences of such an action will be felt.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.135.128.195) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 02:04 pm:

I applaud the above post.

Michael, if you're going to engage in a civilised and mature debate could you refrain from resorting to remarks that question a person's maturity in order to score points, please?

Thankyou for your sentiments re: terrorism and I wholeheartedly agree with you, there. Noraid's status as the supporter of terrorism was dealt another blow since they've recently been caught in South America peddling drugs to fund the killing of British civilians and soldiers. Unfortunately I doubt that they will be punished too severely as the Irish vote has a considerable lobby as far as I'm aware.

The point of hypocrasy re: one nation who has the capability of international mass-destruction on all levels telling another that it can't have have the same has already been stressed. However, it appears that the USA's role as self-appointed judge of what's right and wrong seems to stick in the throats of many.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 02:11 pm:

I guess you don't read the news much - we and the former Soviet Union have greatly reduced the number of nuclear arms as part of an agreement that was verified by both parties - I know people that were on the teams that traveled to Russia to do that - disarmament can be done - South Africa did it, and we never once mentioned invading them

There is a difference between arming countries and what they do with the arms. We gave steel to Japan, and they built ships with them, by your logic we were responsible for Pearl Harbor? Saddam would have invaded Kuwait with or without our arms - and if I remember correctly, the burning hulks on the way out of Kuwait were primarily Soviet vehicles. Even if they were American made, it wasn't Americans telling them to drive over Kuwait.

fighting in the that part of the world was going on before we were a nation - try to pin that on us. Somehow I imagine some of you on this board are going to blame Bush for inspriring Attila the Hun

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.95.220) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 02:46 pm:

It might be more of a case that I don't swallow political propaganda that easily. The former Soviet Union's stocks of international weapons of destruction had to be reduced as they were becoming too volatile and too vulnerable. We're talking of an area which relied upon the electric company to keep its nuclear subs from overheating but oneday was unable to pay the bill. The electric was cut off so the navy was forced to restore power at the point of a gun.

Anyone studying the social and economic climate of SA would find that beautiful country in not the most stable of conditions, either. They can ill afford to support a nuclear arsenal.

Saddam was not just given some arms. He was supported as he was deemed convenient for stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism at the time. His invasion of Kuwait was based upon oil economics and his hope that he could placate the usually divided international community which is where his hopes rest once again today. This time he has not been overtly aggressive, that's been Bush's forte.

As far as I'm aware, the soothsayers of Attila were not inspired by the Dubyah spirit. But Ghengis Khan is another matter....

Regards, Jonathan.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 03:00 pm:

I mentioned his age because he seemed to think that the US was massing on the border of Iraq without provocation - I mentioned his age not as an affront, but since he disregarded the previous discussions about Iraq invading Kuwait - which was central to my previous posts, I though steve might not have been around in 1991 - if you want an intellingent and mature conversation, you must be willing to discuss all alspects of the conflict, not just the fact that we are massing on Iraq's borders today - why are we there? If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait, we would not be there today

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.116.72) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 05:47 pm:

Michael,
I was on standby in 1991 while posted in Germany. We were told to get our personal lives in order, because we would probably be moving out very soon. Now at that time, when they invaded Kuwait, yes I agree that they had to be sent home kicking stones talking to themselves. But what bothers me is that the job wasn't finished then. It should have been finished and done with, Sadam gone and hopefully someone else who is a little more stable in the brain dept. And I was ready to fight, along with the rest of the guys I had trained with for years, finally we were putting our training to some use.
That was then. Now after 12 years of sanctions where I read in a U.N. report that well over a million children have died due to poor quality food and water, no medicine and lack of proper facilities, and I can't for the life of me figure out how he is still a threat to the U.S. Maybe he is to some of his neighboring countries, but all these years he has been boxed in with no where to go, no where to hide and being watched from all around. If you believe he is a direct threat, well that is your business, and freedom of speech thank god is still allowed. But as for me, I really have a hard time condoning an attack after 12 years of no provocation, all he's really done is snub his nose at the U.S.
That is from a soldiers point of view. I have a bad feeling of what is goining to happen if you attack, like I said before, the U.S. will suffer the same way that Isreal is suffering, not by an army, but by terrorists.
Oh and a last thing, if you took the time to read the persons profile here, then you wouldn't have made yourself to sound like an •••.
I wonder though, have you ever served, or just stood back and judge.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 07:07 pm:

I am able to judge even had I not served - but I did - and I have friends that are over there right now. I don't have time or the interest to read profiles or post my own. While it might be interesting for someone to consider someone else's backround, I tend to take the view of looking at their words and evaluating them at face value - a general or a private, soldier or civilian has the right to speak their mind.
If you advocated finishing the job in '91, why do you not want to do it now? I don't think we realistically had the moral authority at that time to topple his regime - our mission was to remove him from Iraq.
Why now? Since that time we have found evidence of all these weapons programs, (and there is proof that he had all of them - the proof that is lacking is that he disposed of them) and he was supposed to dispose of them according to agreements with the UN. He has violated those agreements and has yet to show proof that they now longer exist - read 1441 and the other declarations - the burden of proof is on him not the US or the UN.
He is a threat now because he has the weapons and he can give them to someone to deliver them to us.

As to the numbers that have died - I think they are inflated and are not due to the sanctions but to the current regime's policies - there is enough food and medicine to go around, but Saddam spends money and resources on weapons and soldiers rather than his people. It will be better once he is gone

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.164.99) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 07:47 pm:

Michael,
You say that you didn't have the moral authority to topple his regime, but you also said that he has gased his own people, hell he even gased the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war. But at that time Iraq was the flavor of the month. We all knew during the Gulf war that Iraq had short range Scud missles which might have been capable to carry a chemical or biological agent, so your "moral authority" doesn't wash.
One thing is for sure, the middle east has been a hotbed of fighting for centuries, and the only person, god bless his soul, who was able to recognize it and make peace with Isreal was King Hussein of Jordan. Now I do agree that it would be better all around if Sadam was removed from power, but, it should be done peacefully. Having a military buildup in his back yard and threatening him with war will not in any way make him step down from power, just provoke him.
Most of the people posting these messages here also want a peaceful end to all this. If you don't believe them, then you're not reading their words and evaluating them at face value.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 04:05 pm:

much of what I base my current convictions happened after Saddam was driven out of Kuwait. We thought he might have these weapons but it was after the war the extent of the programs was discovered - actual nerve gas and anthrax was discovered! The fact that he is not disarming since we discovered those and the UN directed him to disarm is the big difference between 2003 and 1991. Oh and that little thing called 9/11 raised the stakes as well. We not only have the right to disarm him by force, we have the obligation to do so. I don't care how many post against using force, they are misguided - I want peace more than you. I have more personal friends over in that theatre than everyone on this thread - I would gladly support a peaceful end if it resulted in true peace. "Peace in our time" is as hollow now as it was 65 years ago. The arguments are all the same - they were wrong then and you are wrong now

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.161.248) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 06:03 pm:

Michael, that's a pretty bold statement you've made about having more friends over there than anyone else on this thread, don't you think?

Also, could you clarify this "we" phrase that you use, please? Am I to assume that you mean the United States or do you mean the UN? It's just the point of "we" having the right to invade another nation based upon the flimsy evidence and motives thus far revealed, that's all.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 06:50 pm:

You are right, that was bold - but other than Tome and a few others I doubt any of you have friends over there - I was only refering to you Bush bashers - because you aren't anti-war - you supported the US in WWII and some have even stated we should have finished the job in 1991 - if that is the case, then we should have every right and obligation to go in now.

By Aya (Aya) (203.120.44.8) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 10:23 pm:

Whoa. This is what happens when Aya doesn't visit often. All that text up there in this thread - I've read the posts off the screen but I WILL be printing them all out so I can read them in depth at my own time.

Meanwhile without sounding like I am deviating from the discussion here or bashing anybody, and with all due respect, I spotted something about "don't read news that much" somewhere up there. That sort of statement never fails to plonk me into a Jekyll and Hyde situation. It's simultaneously very amusing and frustrating, like I've got a hockey stick in my pancreas and the mere effort of trying to remove it either leaves me in guffaws or hissing and growling fits.

Come on. WHAT "news"? Sometimes we think we have all the damned details right down to the nitty gritty from the NEWS or from whatever other source(s) we feel are reliable, but for crying out loud, be mindful what NEWS in general when conveyed and misconstrued does to the public. And someone - anybody - tell me what you really understand from the words "WORLD News". How far isolated are we, each and everyone of us in our warm little holes on our own side of the planet, from the rest of the WORLD?

While the war drums are banging, how many of you reading this boring post from me are aware that an American businessman died in Asia (Hong Kong) yesterday from a respiratory illness, and that the World Health Organisation has issued a global pneumonia alert? Are the war drums banging way too loudly or maybe WORLD news like this reaches the rest of us pretty late?

Unless we're from different planets or solar systems, whatever we're discussing in this thread, let's all please remember not to bang on doors or slam them shut in others' noses. You just might want to go right back in. This may be an off-topic thread and we can discuss what we want but while we're trying to set records straight with one another, can we all remember this site was put up first and foremost in memory of Eugene Roe and his brothers in arms, whether or NOT they are from the same side(s) in the war.

I may sound like I'm missing the point of this discussion altogether but put it this way: a conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking and I'd rather not add on to the neanderthal shouting match that goes on outside of this thread, outside of this community. I prefer to keep my mind open, never mind if my brain falls out while I do that. Even if I get killed doing that then at least I know I'd have departed with my humanity still intact. It's noisy enough as it is with the authorities and other powers that be, going back and forth endlessly and people issuing statements that they're going ahead with the war anyway.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions and we can all stubbornly stand by what we believe in, but until we discipline ourselves enough to adopt some form of humility and listen to others, learn from the past, then all our pride, dignity and integrity is as good as non-existent.

Want to talk about 9-11? Want to talk about what happens to your people? Do you even care about what happens to the children and the innocents of the other side(s)? Do you bother about babies and children killed by snipers from the other side(s)? It's okay to protest for peace in other causes but it's not okay to fight for the same cause in this instance? I could list a thou and one more questions like this here but who gives a damn, right? No one seem to want to think anymore. Go ahead. Fire away.

"Too many people don't care what happens so long as it doesn't happen to them." - W. Howard Taft

Aya

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.156.29) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 12:41 pm:

Michael, unfortunately your doubts about any of us "Bush bashers" having friends over there were misplaced.

I'm not so sure that your logic holds true re: a nations entitlement to invade another due to missing its golden opportunity to do so over ten years ago? Yes, Saddam should have been removed as a result of the Gulf War but the UN forces didn't have a mandate for doing it and his own people didn't have the will, either.

He's a nasty piece of work and no mistake but he ought to be taken out by a UN force with a justification that formed the blessing of the international community to do so. Unfortunately, so far the Bush administration has failed to sell its motives to the world or else who in their right mind would stop them from going in?

Re: your phrase "you supported the US in WW II".
Would you like to seriously reconsider the unfortunate wording of that line, please?

Regards, Jonathan.

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.59.61) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 01:38 pm:

It really frustrates me a lot when there are continual references to world war II in this debate over Iraq. The fact is that Nazi Germany and present day Iraq have hardly any similarities whatsoever.
What a number of people seem to forget is that the period of appeasement prior to world war II was not some cowardly stance taken by Daladier and Chamberlain, but more of a reaction to the previous world war, which so many seem to refer less to. The number of losses on all sides during that conflict and the huge destruction caused by that war, left deep impressions upon many. This attitude to try and maintain peace was the reason why Chamberlain and others attempted to prevent another war which would cause so much death and destruction as 1914-18.
there simply are not any strong comparisons between the Third Reich and Saddam Hussein's regime. The Nazi Party exploited the general feeling of resentment and humiliation which the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles had imposed on Germany. Once in power, Hitler then set out to apply his ultra-nationalist thinking to the feelings of the nation, which is the reason for their aggressive expansionist ambitions. This is all completely irrelevant to the current situation, for Iraq is not a powerful industrial nation with ambitions on creating a huge empire.
Surely a better comparison would be the Suez Crisis in the 1950s, when Britian and France took action again Nasser in Egypt, which the USA opposed. As one can see, this is more similar to our situation in which Britain and the USA wish to take military action again Saddam Hussein, which France opposes.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 02:30 pm:

The similarities to Hitler and Saddam are so obvious that I can't understand why people don't see it. The root cause for their expansionist strategy I admit are two different things - but they both had(have) expansionist desires - Hitler for Austria then the Sudatenland - that was the time to stop him - but he felt that since we didn't stop him, he invaded Poland later that year and the rest, as we say, is history. I know that Chamberlain hoped for peace, but it was misguided - he actually accelerated the march to WWII. Diplomacy can work, but both sides must be willing to avoid war - Hitler was not willing to avoid war and I think Saddam's invasion into Kuwait and the hiding of his weapons of mass destruction are clear evidence that he is not willing to give up on his plans for expansion - you guys keep asking for proof - he had these weapons - that is well documented! Where they are now is for Saddam to prove, not the UN.
The comparisons between Hitler and Saddam are so obvious - the French army was larger than Hitler's in 1938. At the time of the Gulf War Iraq had the 4th largest military force in the entire world and presented a real threat to that entire region. Had he not been stopped - i.e. if Bush I had been like Neville Chamberlain(or Jimmy Carter) Saddam would be even stronger today. I know that both Carter and Chamberlain are well intentioned, but they both advocate appeasement, which only works when the other side is willing.
Again the measure of the threat in WWII was troops and tanks, in todays world one weapon can do as much damage as an entire regiment or more. If we were to turn our backs on this situation today, Sadam would eventually be strong enough to throw out the inspectors and do whatever he wants - which is to dominate the region

As far as my "unfortunate" wording, I can't think of another way to say it. I meant it - the same people that say we were right to stop Hilter are saying war against Saddam is wrong - the same people that supported bombing Milosevic into submission are against this war - if I were to rank these guys on vileness and danger to humanity it would be Hitler 1, Saddam 2, Milosevic 3.

Talk about bad comparisons - what threat to world peace did Nassar pose? A threat to movement through the Suez, but that is an economic inconvenience as opposed to a threat to lives and is a far cry from the danger Saddam poses today

By .... (200.163.13.81) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 05:02 pm:

Michael tatu i dont think that you know the situation that a destroyed country that has no conditions to produce medicine and other things. Embargo is the biggest crime in the world. People die in IRAQ because of the embargo. People die in CUBA because of the embargo.

By Please (200.163.13.81) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 05:18 pm:

And please why dont you study HISTORY because you are saying so many stupid things. How can you compare nazi germany with iraq now? First, it was and industralized country with power to build guns etc.. Iraq is a poor country , that doesnt have conditions to feed his own people. All countries knew that germany was re-arming itself(how could a country with no guns , provide guns to right wingers in the spanish civil war and have an strong air force like the luftwave) , and world leaders didnt even bother ,because they liked the idea of a strong country next to the Soviet Union and also there wasnt an organization that had the powers that UN has to peacefuly resolve a situation. And how can IRAQ be a threat if he is a destroyed country? You dont believe it? Go there and see it. Since i started to study world history, american policy since the begining i have learned NOT to believe in one word your leaders say. Thats why i dont believe that iraq has chimical and mass destructive weapons, and if the USA has proves why dont they show it to the world? I cant understand!! I dont believe that usa is going to fight saddam because of the people in IRAQ, thats the biggest lie in the world, the usa doesnt care for people in other countries, thats a fact! Because if this was truth so many horrible things the usa has done in his history to other countries wouldnt have happened and Usa would be at war with china , north korea , paquistan , iran and etc...

Please dont compare the situations and stop saying things you dont believe!

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 05:52 pm:

if you don't believe the US - look at the UN documentation - Iraq had tons of chemical weapons - that is UN documentation not US documentation. If you don't believe the US you must believe Iraq - go over there and help them - go over and complain about their leaders - see what happens. These last two posts above prove that you people hate America - fine, I am not going to change your mind. No amount of UN declarations will sway you.
My comparison of Hitler and Saddam is valid and we will stop him.
I am sorry that I ever continued this thread - most of you on this thread hate the US and I am not going to use a site that is dedicated to soldiers that helped liberate Europe to carry on discussions about how evil America is - we are not - if we were that bad, they would be speaking English in France and Holland - we came, we helped defeat Hitler, we helped rebuild Europe and we left except for those forces necessary to stop the Soviet Union. As that threat went away, so did the US.

By UncleSam (24.220.222.254) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 06:44 pm:

Micheal,
I too found out the hard way to keep my beliefs under my hat involving this discussion. All we can do is wait until it is over. We will see the extent of the torture and destruction that Saddam has inflicted on his people. We as Americans look for "FACTS". Our Government knows much more than they are telling us but are holding it back to prove how much of a liar Saddam is. Sanctions are the fault of Saddam and any leader who would put his people through that should be forcefully removed from power. I agree with your comparison of the two leaders. When all is said and done the world will be in shock for a while as they were when we discovered the death camps in Germany. I have seen several interviews of people who have defected from Iraq and it seems to me that those people want to be liberated and as for the sacrifice of life for freedom, there is no other way and those people are already used to that suffing but for no good cause.I dont understand why some of these people are even in these posting areas.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.103.197) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 06:49 pm:

Michael, I asked you to reconsider the wording of other nations helping the USA in WW II as it sounded like a Hollywood version of history. That is: the USA defeated Germany, well, with the help of one or two other nations.

Those of us who belong to nations who were involved in WW II years before the USA was provoked into direct involvement would obviously resent such a sentiment. Who wouldn't?

However, I for one strongly hope that there isn't a single person who uses this great site who hates the USA. It's not that simple. What many might resent is certain aspects of US foreign policy. Perhaps even the cultural indoctrination, such as calling a number of its major sports by the title of "World" even though its not the world who takes part, only or mainly the US.

Many of us cannot understand some of the political rhetoric, either. Many terms are given in a general or wholesale sense like, 'we're gonna stamp out terrorism'. Really? Anyone who believes that to be true lives on a different planet to me. Though I applaud the sentiment, it's just not realistic.

I've had a quick communication from one of my colleagues who's over there, by the way. He says that they've got the devil's own work by trying to keep the sand out of just about everything, even if it's sheltered in a tent or something.

Please do not feel that the likes of me dislike the people or personel of the USA. I can only speak for myself but it's far from the case. People are people, wherever they are. Unfortunately, so are politicians!

Regards, Jonathan.

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 08:01 am:

I have to agree with Jonathan.
Bush can speak beautifull words, but please don't get fooled by it.

Look at Hitler, Hitler could speak beautifull words too! He got it all because of his speeches and now just look what he's done.

I don't say here that Bush is a second Hitler or something, I'm just trying to tell that we shoudn't always listen to words. It could bring people into real problems.

By Bored (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 03:22 pm:

Some people have a total misconception of the intelligence of the American people. This is really not about supporting Bush, it is about doing what needs to be done and what unfortunatley the Iraqi people cant do themselves. To compare American mentality to the state of minds of the German people under Hitler is pure ignorance in itself as they had no real choice in the matter, Bush would not ask the American People to destroy themselves and our great country if we were defeated. I myself have been swayed one way or the other more than once, this is not a rushed decision that Americans just say, "Let's blow the hell out of them". We have had many years to make up our minds whether or not we support our Administrative decisions. "WE ARE NOT PROGRAMED PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY" regardless of what many may think. Why should we expect other countries to agree with everything that we do, I mean, isn't that the reason that most of us came to America in the first place, that is why we are here. We have been disagreeing with other countries since this country is fouded. I am starting to see that you can only understand what it means to be an American if you are an American and I am not putting us above any other people because I do not forget how diverse our country is and the many ethnic groups we have. Personally speaking, Bushe's speeches are the last thing that has swayed my opinion. In fact, I find them far less compelling than the overwhelming evidence against Saddam, the interviews of defectors, his lack of regard for the rest of the world and even his people. His time is up! Has anyone else seen the interviews with , Dr. Khidir Hamza about the overall intentions of Saddam and his weapons program? How, even his closest and most talented Scientists were and probably still are taken away and tortured when they don't perform to his expectations. I don't believe everything that I see on tv but at what point do people give up the idea that this whole situations is an American Fabrication. Maybe in other countries the governments do not allow free press to handle both sides of the story or have the documentaries that we see in America. And I suppose the agrument that this is just those Americans dramatizing the story again and our media brainwashing us. When I watch the news, I see both sides every day and It used to sway me to some degree one way or the other but not anymore. Basing the current situation on history is really just making excuses for each persons personal view. Any situation that comes up in the world can be compared to a past event in history and there are two sides to historical events that resulted in war. That is why if one person who is in favor of military action speaks out, another person who may be a "history expert" (there seems to be no shortage of experts here who like to display their vast knowlege) This Post is like the UN Security Council (it gets nowhere and looses sight of who is the object of the resolution) and unfortunatley I have stooped to contributing to the conversation once again. I'm out.................................. Gotta go get an order of "freedom fries"

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.122.96) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 10:15 am:

I applaud your post. It was well thought out and balanced. Perhaps some of the threads could be taken even further? Such as the sentiment that only Americans know what it's like to be Americans? An obvious extension would be only Saddam or Bush, for that matter know what it's like being them?

I also agree that Americans are not brainwashed or anything. Bush, who was elected by the narrowest of margins must only have the consensus of roughly half of America. The rest follow him due to the nation being united in the face of 9/11.

However, what some of us see are arguments that have thus far failed to convince an awful lot of the world. Plus at the end of the day, that Iraq is a soft target. Surely there are other nations out there that have at least the amount of destructive capability as Iraq does? Complete with distasteful leaders just like Saddam? The threat of N. Korea comes to mind, plus what China has already proven to be capable of doing to its own people and the rest of the world, if it had a mind to.

In the issue of Iraq, the political rhetoric thus far doesn't add up to making that nation a special case or priority over equally dangerous/volatile nations. We do not see the Arab world pressing for action against Iraq. That in itself speaks volumes.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 09:00 am:

I live in Holland, I don't get to hear much about all this stuff goin' on, but we do hear things what's needed to hear, the important things that happens.

I only know about the attack on 9/11 and about Bush who wants to get Osama BinLaden for that. I know Terrosrism is on it, I know Osama is the headleader of the Al-Qeada, There's a lot of cinky stuff goin' on in Iraq what got to do with Terrorism, and i Know Bush wants Iraq to stop with the Terrorism (Please correct me if i'm wrong with all this)

Now Bush is talking sweet about He wants to destroy Terrorism and Al-Qeada and Saddam.

I hear all around the world Bush wants to own the land of Iraq because of the oil. I don't know, i don't know Bush, i can't say he's a bad person for lying to his country or so, I just think we should be carefull.

After all of the documentaries (Not much)I've seen, I know i wouldn't mind to see Saddam dead, i woudn't mind to help him get out of Iraq. I wouldn't mind to see the Iraqi people free and happy again.

But i would mind a war, draggin' half of the world's soldiers to Iraq to get Terrorism defeated.

I hate to say this, i really do, but it's treu; As long as there are people on this planet, there will be different thoughts, minds, believes, acknowledges and spirits. There's no-one who can chanse that, not even a world leader like Bush, as much as he wants to...

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 02:10 pm:

so much to say - but first - Jonathan I was not lumping you in with America haters - I was specific about the previous two posts that basically acused America of killing Iraqis and Cubans with embargoes and another said that they don't believe a single word US leaders say.
those people have been programmed and no amount of proof will sway them.
re-read my posts - America did not liberate Europe - we HELPED liberate Europe. Thank God for Winston Churchill as I think had the UK fallen, we(the US) would have followed Joe Kennedy's advice and "try to deal with this Hitler fellow". Again, there was a strong anti-war sentiment in the US prior to Pearl Harbor. As my military history teacher used to say - the Russian Army defeated the Germans and the US Navy defeated Japan - there is a ring of truth to that. Although without a second front and UK/US bombers to contend with, I think Germany would have eventually beaten Russia
Finally - for a few of you - say what you want about Bush, but don't compare him to Hitler until he annexes Ontario or Mexico or Cuba and then starts rounding up people and shooting them, gassing them and incinerating them. My comparisons of Saddam to Hitler still stand - he did try to annex a country, he has gassed people and he has rounded up and tortured people.

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.73.252) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 02:29 pm:

Hey Michael guess what, looks like you'll be getting war after all wooohoo(!) Despite the fact that France, Germany, Russia and China all oppose war, and the fact that your president is completely ignoring and disregarding the UN (hey i though regime change was illegal according to the UN Charter?), the big three USA, UK and Spain are now going to INVADE Iraq. Before you start to say that yes Iraq are making military moves (command zones etc etc), wouldn't you do exactly the same if you had a military superpower about to storm into your country?

By WaterBuffalo (24.220.222.254) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 06:59 pm:

As I said before, not agreeing with other governments is why we are all Americans and the rest of the world is not. Our country was founded on that principal and people still come here from all over the world every day because of this. I don't know that most countries would arm their weapons at the last minute with chemicals they have been saying they don't have for 12 years. I think most countries in the position of Iraq would have the common sense to overthrow their leader and save their people. The UN is basically a joke and this ridiculous 12 year debate is shedding light on that right now. How does one somehow feel that Saddam has the right to have this power over his people for so long. I have seen more video clips Jaque Crosonte with Saddam than any other leader in the world. You tell me who has intrest in Iraqi oil. These countries are the same countries who have always held things up. Germany cant even participate in a war, France could never really fight a war, Russia is spent, and china is just body count who doesn't even have enough weapons for its troops. Of course they don't want the world to see that we are the Only real superpower left in the World. We know the reasons for that, it will make them all look weak when all is said and done. Sorry, but your anti American Vibe is pissing me off!

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 07:57 pm:

Penil, I am not celebrating, believe me. Let us hope that this is over quickly so that both the soldiers and civilians involved don't suffer.
The Iraqi military is fully within their rights to deploy as they see fit, including attacking first if they think that is their best defense. They should think twice about using chemical/bio agents though - first, that will just prove the US/UK/Spain were right, and second, that is against the Geneva convention and they will be guilty of war crimes - they will kill more Iraqis than Americans using those weapons. They should use the French defense method - surrender as soon as possible.
Ok, so we are ignoring the UN - we get to ignore the UN one week for every year that Saddam has ignored them - that gives us twelve weeks.
It is not the first time we disagreed with the French, Germans, Chinese and the Russians - won't be the last. If we find that the French were supplying weapons to the Iraqis, are you going to accuse them of ignoring the UN?

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 02:07 pm:

I don't thing anybody is celebrating the new coming war now, Penil.

By Sergeant First Class Danny Autrey (Retiredarmy) (198.36.178.141) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 03:40 pm:

You anti-American, socialist loving, cry baby leftist, french loving anti-war whine bags need to can it. If you are not an American, you cannot understand the attack of 9-1-1 had on our country. We have an absolute right to defend ourselves and this we will do. The next time the stinking french get invaded, maybe they will ask Iraq to come free them. As for Germany, they started two World Wars and were responsible for the deaths of over 50 MILLION humans. So, I don't want to hear your whining. You all want America to come to your rescue when you have your butts in a sling, and the rest of the time you bash it and whine. You want our money, our equipment, our man power, our help, then whine, whine, whine. Button up. I have also had it with your cry baby anti-American whining. This site is dedicated to a freedom loving, fighting soldier and fighting soldiers of freedom, the men of Easy Company. We don't need your anti-American bashing, whining, liberal, leftist, communist, socialist crap here. Do us a favor and just go away quietly with your tails between your legs. That is where it is most of the time as you pander to your dictators. The USA does not pander to leftist dictators!

By JoaoL (200.163.13.81) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 04:56 pm:

Honestly. You are the reason why there are so many wars in this world. Havent you learned the main lesson from Band of Brothers?

By Michael (200.163.13.81) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 05:13 pm:

I think americans like war. They cant spend a decade without one. They like to send their friends , children, fathers, mothers to strange places to get killed and to kill other friends , children , mothers , fathers . I certainly wouldnt like to live on a country like this one. The reason why there are some many wars in this world is exactly what JoaoL said. People like Sergeant Fir class Dany Autre, so much hate and will to kill and prejudice can only lead to one way. The thing is that there are people who have exactly the same will and hate and prejudice that he has but with other opinion , country, religion , and that causes war. Other reason to war is money. So , i can only have an opinion and my opinion is that war is a stupid politics , economic , stupid patriotic thing.

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.141.73) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 05:36 pm:

Danny,
There wouldn't have been an America if the "Stinking French" hadn't come to your aid during the war of independence.
I also had no idea that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice was outlawed.

By Celeste Valenzuela (Lushybubls) (12.213.16.217) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 05:41 pm:

I don't believe patriotism is neither stupid nor a "thing". It can hold a country together. It can offer hope. Please don't downplay something that mean so much to so many people.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 07:40 pm:

Steve,
at no time did Danny say anything about religion - and all the other things he did criticize were the result of Danny practicing his right to free speech - he didn't say you couldn't say it, he just wished you would go away.
And you do have a point about the French - but I think they have been repaid with interest

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 08:38 pm:

I AM SEEING A GREAT DEAL OF FOREIGN IGNORANCE IN THIS POST! MOST OF YOU HAVE A VERY FALSE IMPRESSION OF WHAT AMERICA IS LIKE AND WHAT AMERICAN CITICENS ARE LIKE. THE MORE I READ THE MORE I REALIZE THAT I AM DEFINITELY PROUD TO BE AMERICAN AND WOULD NOT TAKE ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY, OR OIL (SEEING THAT IS ALL WE HERE WANT) TO LIVE IN ANY OTHER PLACE IN THIS WORLD! I KNOW ANTI-AMERICANISM FIRST HAND. MY BROTHER WHO I PROUDLY SAY IS A 17 YEAR ARMY VETERAN, MARRIED MY SISTER IN LAW WHO GREW UP IN GERMANY. WHEN
SHE CAME HERE, SHE WAS OPPOSED TO EVERYTHING AND ARGUED AIMLESSLY ABOUT THINGS SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND OR KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT. WELL, NEEDLESS TO SAY, WHEN THEY RETURNED TO GERMANY FOR ANOTHER SHORT TOUR, SHE REALIZED HOW BACK-ASSWARD HER HOMELAND REALLY WAS AND THAT IT WAS JUST YEARS OF GROWING UP IN AN ANTI-AMERICAN SOCIETY WHO IN REALITY IS PROBABLY JUST OVERLY ENVIOUS OF OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO COME TO AMERICA DECIDE THEY DON'T LIKE IT AND GO BACK HOME TO STAY. I'M FINDING THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE US, DO SO BECAUSE THEY CANT BE US.

MICHEAL AND DANNY----YOU GUYS KEEP ON ROCKIN' IN THE FREE WORLD!
AS FOR ANY ANTI'S WHELL, JUST USE YOUR IMAGINATIONS

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.116.75) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 09:26 pm:

Michael,
Why is it anyone with a difference of opinion should have to go away. Maybe if you are in a dictatorship and the opinion that counts is your own. We, and I learn so much from a difference of opinion. I applaud someones opinion, because they have the courage to stand up and be heard. I applaud Dannys' opinion, even yours Michael, even though it might be a little sarcastic. I find humor in it, but also learn from it because there is a passion in your beliefs and no one has that right to take it away from you, or us. If we were all the same, my god this would be a boring place. But we come from different walks of life, some are alot stranger than ours, and some are not. I find from each individuals postings here bits of information that put together larger pieces of the puzzle, and I hope that will continue. I know this site was made in the remembrance of Eugene Roe and the members of Easy CO., past and present, but the future is built on our past, no matter how far we go back in time to make our point.
I am not an American hater by any means. I have the deepest respect for the soldiers who are serving overseas now, and I hope that this mess will be over quickly so they can return safely to their families. One point I made on an earlier post was about the politicians and war. I don't, never have, and never will trust a politician. I don't care if he or she is from your country or ours. They are a two headed coin, with there own personal agendas in mind and there own goals. And when their time is up in office, and if they have made a mess of things for the people of their country, then it's the people who suffer. And that is one of the points I had made earlier. I fear that the U.S. is going to end up in the same mess as Isreal and Palistein. One day you are riding the subway, some clown gets on board with a lunchbox full of explosives, and boom. And there is no army in the world that can fight that. Just look at Isreal, one of the best Armies in the world, and even they can't stop it. Then it's back and forth with retaliation after retaliation.
Anyways, I'll move on now, and I know somebody will disagree with some of the things I have said, but thats great, have your opinion, speak your mind, we all learn something everyday.
Oh, just one more thing. I noticed at the top of this page, they are asking people to send care packages to the soldiers. YES, by all means, send a package, letter or something to the soldiers of your country, let them know they are in your thoughts. Nothing weighs on a soldiers mind more when away, than home, I know, I've been there.
I might not support this war, and definately not the politics involved, but I will always support a soldier. Always!

By Aya (Aya) (203.126.27.196) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 10:09 pm:

By Jwicks (Jwicks) (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 02:04 pm:

Nice story Aya. We are all brothers.

By UncleSam (24.220.222.254) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 08:44 pm:

Micheal,
I too found out the hard way to keep my beliefs under my hat involving this discussion ... ... several interviews of people who have defected from Iraq and it seems to me that those people want to be liberated and as for the sacrifice of life for freedom, there is no other way and those people are already used to that suffing but for no good cause.I dont understand why some of these people are even in these posting areas.

By Bored (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

Some people have a total misconception of the intelligence of the American people. ... ... Gotta go get an order of "freedom fries"

By WaterBuffalo (24.220.222.254) on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 08:59 pm:

As I said before, not agreeing with other governments is why we are all Americans and the rest of the world is not. ... ... Sorry, but your anti American Vibe is pissing me off!

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 10:38 pm:

I AM SEEING A GREAT DEAL OF FOREIGN IGNORANCE IN THIS POST! MOST OF YOU HAVE A VERY FALSE IMPRESSION OF WHAT AMERICA IS LIKE AND WHAT AMERICAN CITICENS ARE LIKE. ... ... I'M FINDING THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE US, DO SO BECAUSE THEY CANT BE US.

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 06:57 am:

Amazing, my deterioration over time isn't it.
Jamie
I guess I address each situation as I see fit.
Just on the devensive end of some of the ridiculous statements ive seen
jamie

By Sergeant First Class Danny Autrey (Retiredarmy) (198.36.178.141) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 01:26 pm:

I said it. I stand by it. I WILL NOT take a word of it back.

If you think America is so bad, then why do you come to this site? What is your reason here? America has paid her dues. Many times over. We have kept the world FREE from the Nazi's, Soviet, Communist, you name it for over 60 years. Our soldiers bled and died for freedom. To free some of your own countries.

And you have the gall to come here and bash us now? But, let the bad guys come to you shores and where do you run? To American begging for help. Try having 3,000 of your citizens murdered while they worked to provide for and feed their families. Hundreds of brave NY City police and firemen and women lost their lives trying to save those people. The images of those people jumping out of those buildings, falling to the streets to keep from being burned to death. Choosing to die hitting the concrete rather than die in the fire. You bash us for going to defeat this type of people. What I would like to say would get me banned from this site. So, I will refrain. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Believe the french storyline that Saddam is not a bad guy. Go ahead. Believe it. You are the stupid one. You believe that he is not bad. Ask his own exiled citizens in this country how bad he is. He murders, rapes, punches out the eyes of children to make his point. To keep the people under his thumb. Go ahead. Believe the leftist crap. You are the fool. Not me. He is just like the Viet Cong. They ruled the same way in Vietnam. They murdered, raped, did the same things.

We freed the French twice. We bailed their fannies out in WWI and WWII. We defeated both Japan and Germany, THEN SPENT BILLIONS UPON BILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS TO REBUILD THEM BOTH!! Then we spent billions more on keeping both free.

You people who are not from here, do not know this country, do not know what a REAL Patriot of his country is, then you have no idea what we American Patriots think or believe. Curse me, scold me, say what you like. It does not bother me in the least. It is your right to speak free, at least it is in this country. If it is in your country, it is because AMERICA provided you the protection for those freedoms. If you believe differently, then you have absolutely no knowledge of history in the 20th century. America. Americans. The United States of America. 50 free states. We kept the peace. We also deal with the bad guys. Hitler was bad. We dealt with him. The Soviets were bad. We dealth with them. Saddam is very bad. And, by George, we will soon DEAL with him.

As I said. I stand by what I said earlier. If you don't like it, oh well. I will not apologize for my words. I believe them. I stand by them. I spent 20 years defending this Republic and probably yours also. I went from Vietnam to Germany to defend. I spend 10 years of my life in Germany defending the Germans. I have not seen any Germans assisting us lately. Mostly the socialists in German slam us for wanting to get rid of a murdering rapist dictator. The frenchiraquies are heavily invested in Iraq for their oil, shipping them weapons, selling them the equipment and knowledge to make the A-bomb. When Saddam or his likes nuke your nation or city, don’t bother coming here whining about it.

In 1944, thousands of American troops dropped into Holland to liberate it. They accomplished that mission. A short few months ago, some mayor in a Dutch town blasted America for what we were going to do to Saddam. That same mayor got a letter from a very old WWII vet who told him that next time Holland got in to a fix with the bad guys, don’t come running to him, they were on their own. I echo that veteran’s beliefs and sentiments. You will be on your own, because I will not come to your defense.

Your criticism of me and my beliefs do not bother me in the least bit. I am a free man. I fought a war in Vietnam to assist freedom. I have many, many family members in the past that fought in the American civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. My family is a family of American Patriots. Ready, willing and able to defend this wonderful, FREE Republic! This I defend. This I will not, I repeat for ALL OF YOU, will not apologize!

By Stephanie Ambroos (Freaky) (80.200.248.201) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 03:48 pm:

hi
I can't write Englisch as well as you guys so don't mind about the mistakes.

About the opinon thing, I also really respect it when someone come's out for it but why is everybody so mad when a country does that? I have read in almoste every newspaper I know from many countries in the world,about what some countries have said about those who doesn't share the opinion they think's right, they don't even listen to the arguments that country has, they only go mad as a little child would do when it get's critic about something!

About the oil, people say it's the only thing Bush is thinking about when he's talking about Iraq and I think in some ways they're right because Bush's whole campain is sponsered by big oilfactories and in his speech he also asked to the Iraq soldiers for not burning the oilsources but I also think when any other country in the world would attac Iraq people would say the same thing because oil is juste as impotant to them as it is to us and every other country!!!

Amarica know's it's a powerfull country but I really think you guys better should have waited untill the U.N agrees.But now, when it's almost certain war'll start I hope my country and all the others will send a little support to Iraq and all the troops there so all this madness can be over soon and everybody can go home because it really must be hard for everybody who's at Iraq for the moment!
oh and danny I'm sure nobody hate's Amarica everybody just has an opinion and it's not with a bad meaning they say things like that, really it's not, and I'm verry greatfull the amarican soldiers saved my country so many years ago everybody is, but it was for peace everybody fought isn't it and ofcourse against the dictarship of Hitler.So I hope the soldiers back there will liberate the civilians out of the dictatotship of Sadam I'msure they'll greatfull to all of you but please let it stop after that we've all seen enough!!

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (213.122.247.243) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 05:36 pm:

Danny,
You and I have always seen eye to eye in the past so here's to hoping that this will continue.

I firmly agree with just about everything you've said. If I've questioned the motives behind this war it was only from a political viewpoint. Not against the nation, not against the people.

Please excuse me if I choose to pick up on just one issue though okay? Reading your recent posts, it reads "we" did this and "we" did that. In the sense that the USA beat the Germans twice and liberated the French the same amount of times, too. Then there's the fighting in Holland as well.

Do you still stand by these words or if you had the chance, would you have re-worded your posts and slipped the word "helped" in?

Regards and continued respect, Jonathan.

By Michael (200.193.227.198) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 06:57 pm:

USA LIBERATES and frees other people acording to their own interests. If the USA has interests in a dictator ship then its okay to the US, for example the dictator ship at cuba before Castro, or the dictator ships in Latin america sponsored by the USA. The usa doesnt give a damm for the people in other countries, its all acording to money interests. Or do you think that the USA rebuilt Europe because the usa is so good and right! Do you think USA rebuilt JAPAN after destroying it because you liked how japan was before? Its not about the people , its not about freedom in other countries , its not about values , its all about interest in money and other things. But someting went wrong and some of the people you helped in the past , that you gave money and weapons (Osama , saddam) have turned against you and now you say you want to SAVE THE WORLD FROM THEM, that makes me laugh. I dont see the USA liberating the people of China , the people of north korea and others. And i enter this site because i have respect for the soldiers who fought in WW2

By Michael (200.193.227.198) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 06:58 pm:

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 07:42 pm:

Stephanie,
I find it hard to believe that anyone would risk someone's life if this were just for oil. If we wanted oil, we would invade Saudi Arabia - they would be easier to defeat and they have more oil. I truly believe that this is about stopping the export of these weapons that Iraq has, or I would not support the President.
Steve,
I never said any of you should go away - I think you are confusing me with Danny - I was pointing out that what he said was go away, which is not taking away your freedom to speak - you and Jonathan are not lumped in with the haters, but we still disagree.
Agree with everyone that hopes this is over quickly with the minimum loss of life on both sides.

By Brandee Patrie (Boot) (198.81.26.142) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 12:25 am:

I agree and disagree with the lot of you.
I am one of the first people to say I don't want a war. Believe me. My husband is out to sea right now with the Navy. I have three friends at work waiting for their phone call: a Green Beret, an Army Medic, and a paratrooper. I pray every night that their phone stays silent.
But are we going to sit back and wait for Saddam to make another move? (do we honestly believe that Kuwait 12 years ago was his only trick?)All this time we've been saying 'get rid of your weapons or else' and he's just now getting around to doing some of it? It's an awful thing to do but something has to be done. Slapping his wrist for 12 years obviously isn't going to make him comply to anything.
It's a fact of the world we live in. Sometimes people have to go to war to try to make the world a little better. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But what would've become of it if nobody did a thing? We didn't have to go to Europe in 1944.

By Jwicks (Jwicks) (24.220.222.254) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 07:14 am:

God Bless you Brandee, Your Husband, all of your friends and all of the Willing Coalition troops who have taken this task upon themselves despite sidelining by our so called allies. I too have a brother who is waiting for the call and pray this thing is over very quickly.

Jamie

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.93.200) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 11:06 am:

Now we're getting somewhere. We've got folks wanting this over with quickly 'cos no-one wants the suffering to go on. We've got folks showing respect (as it should be) to the members of the Coalition Forces and hoping for their safe return.

Two points though:

Michael T, thanks for your earlier post (March 17)that I missed. I fully agree with you. However I'm not so sure that Saudi would be easy to attack. Saudi is the religious home of Islam (Mecca) and any attack on them would trigger an enormous worldwide response on every level, from protest to terrorism.

Brandee, you are quite correct that the USA didn't have to go to Europe in 1944. Though I was under the impression that a whole lot of US forces (incl. the 8th Air Force) arrived over here earlier than that. However, there was the matter that Hitler had declared war on the USA and had commenced targeting US shipping. The only real way of destroying the German capability for doing this would be to eliminate this at source: the U Boat production facilities and pens of North West Europe.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Stephanie Ambroos (Freaky) (80.200.248.201) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 02:49 pm:

hi Micheal

I think most of the soldiers there just want to capture Sadam and liberate the Iraq people that's i think the only reason why the soldiers are fighting,the oil is just a thing for Bush.

I'm still of opinion that we should had solve this whole thing on a diplomatic way I'm sure that when we would have waited for just a little longer we would have come to the right solution though I have to commit Amarica was right about the weapons.
Brandee , I hope for you your husband is allright really I mean it i know it doesn't help much but I'll say a little pray for him hoping he comes home allright.
Goodnight people I'll think and thank the soldiers in iraq who're fighting on this verry moment
bye

By Mike Miller (24.158.66.101) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 09:57 pm:

Why people do not see that Hussein is a threat I just do not know where there head is. This man has been trying for years under the eye of the world, perfecting his weapons of germs and bio and nuclear for use later. It was just a matter of time when he would have made his move and used them on his neighbors, he thinks he should be ruler of the middle east. After 9/11 the United States is no longer going to sit back and be threaten by no one or let there National interest be threaten either. 3000 people lost there lives on 9/11 who did nothing but go to work and make a living for there families, it is time for the practice of terror to stop and the ones behind it know nothing but violence, so violence is what they get. Iraq is a message to tyrant leaders and terrorist you can run but you can't hide forever. God bless the United States of America and her allies.

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 06:20 pm:

Soon Mike, Everyone, even the "Anti's" will see the proof. When I say "Anti's" I don't mean everyone who doesn't agree with me just certain people and I think they and most others know who they are. I mean I'm becoming Anit-French and I realize that without being told by someone else.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.152.139) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 06:33 pm:

Isn't being anti-French a bit too severe?
Although granted, certain words tend to stick in my throat such as:
Crecy,
Poitiers,
Agincourt,
Blenheim,
Quebec,
Trafalgar
And Waterloo.

Nah, on second thoughts you're probably right.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.152.139) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 06:50 pm:

However, another friend has just mailed me this
moral dilemma:

You're sat watching the tv for the latest in the Middle East when suddenly there's a newsflash.

You're amazed to hear that NASA has been tracking a large asteroid for a while now and it's finally calculated to be heading toward Earth. To be precise, France. Various experts are consulted live on tv and it's calculated that the Coalition has enough transport (that is on standby to go to the Gulf) to remove the endangered French. However, this would mean that if reenforcements were needed for the Gulf none would be forthcoming until all the French were evacuated.

Moral Dilemma:

Do you set the VCR to record the impact or do you stay up and watch it live?

By Stephanie Ambroos (Freaky) (80.200.248.202) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 05:33 am:

Sadam hussein is a threat I'm not going to deny that. And the whole world was chocked by 9/11 but weren't 3000 innocent victims not enough? I'm still sure we could have solved this on a diplomatic way. Now Bush is bomming Iraq and again innocent people are dieing, people who have also nothing to do with this whole mess.I really think it's outrageous because Bush is on that way just the same as Osama when he's bomming Iraq he's also killing people who are just born in the wrong country and what is he doing? He goes to his country house I'm sorry, I don' hate Bush but what the hell is he doing I think he should better look first at himself before accusing other people!!!

By Stephanie Ambroos (Freaky) (80.200.248.202) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 05:51 am:

What's wrong with the French? it's an opinion they are following when the Amarican people for example have an other opinion than mine do I have to hate them to than? France think they're right Amarica think's they're right. But think in a stuation as this one there is no right solution and besides all the opinion things there is a war going on, aren't we supposed to help each other instead of arguing like I'm anti-French, Anti-Belgium anti-amarica or whatever?

By Stephanie Ambroos (Freaky) (80.200.248.202) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 05:52 am:

besides I don't know muh about the Amarican historie but haven't they helpt you guys in you're fight for independence against the Englisch? It's a long time ago but you may forget this

By Jwicks (Jwicks) (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 07:03 am:

c:\documents and settings\jamie.Wicks\my documents\my pictures
c:documents and settingsjamie.Wicksmy documentsmy picturespic02483 pic02483

If you believe we forgot about the French, take a good look at this.
Regardless of how you might feel about the war OR about France, this is an
interesting aerial shot of the French coastline - one to at least make us
remember.

These are 10,943 "Good Reasons" why France should be backing the United States in the fight against Iraq!

Jamie

By robert hunt (Mulder) (195.92.168.170) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 09:08 am:

Hi everyone
I'm new to this site and I agree that hte French seem to have forgotton what happened 60 years ago My dad fought in France as an 18 year old soldier he saw some horrific things including his best friend having his head blown off in front of him. I think the french should remember who liberated them and that we now have another tyrant to rid the world of . A tyrant who has murdered millions of his own people! I am scottish and I love the Americans for standing up for what is right. Regards Mariane

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 09:36 am:

Mariane,
I'm sorry to hear your father has been thru a tough time, you have my simpathies for that.

I totally agree with Mariane and with Jamie, and with Stephany. This is a war, you are supposed to help each other and not to argue about things just to keep your pride. There are men and women getting killed there every day and i feel so bad, that i can't do a thing about it.

I think it's good that Saddam is finally getting away from Iraq, i'm sure he will after this war is over, i'm positive that the "good side" will win. Although i'm not even sure if Bush has good intentions with beginning this war. He saiys he has, but there are so many people who say he doesn't. And i don't know which to believe.

After all of the story's i've heard from Saddam and the images on TV of the people in towns in South Iraq who has been liberated by the American Marine Corps and the Brittish, you can see how happy those people are, you can read the joy of their faces, you can see them dancing of freedom at last...! I'm so glad that Saddam will see his death coming forward to him.

War is totally Hell, it's a dissaster, which idiot came up with it..?! But i'm so glad these people have been saved because of the US/UK- soldiers, who are send by Bush and Blair.

I don't want this war, nobody does. It's just so sad that there is no other way to get rid of Saddam. And this is what really needs to happen. I could cry thinking of the deaths that will come. Of all the innocent people who could get killed...

How the hell did we get into this situation?!

By What (200.193.226.120) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 09:58 am:

What a big democracy the united states ha. How can 1000 protesters be arrested? This is not democracy. Now you cant protest against war in the usa ? The freedom speech appears to be simple when it is said :"Oh lets free the people of iRAQ" but its so much more complicated than that.

By Jwicks (Jwicks) (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 10:28 am:

We have the right to protest our government through freedom of speech. However, these freedoms do not allow us to break the law and do this where ever we want to because of many things such as infringement on someone elses property. Also, you have to remember that sometimes a good deal of people who protest various causes tend to be "radicals" who have no other cause in life, they do so to "belong to something". It strikes me that people who protest for peace, often wind up being more violent in a demonstation on an individual basis than your average person who is in favor of a cause such as "justifiable military action" We see this in our country with many other causes including (abortion, animal rights (against hunters such as myself), and any other imaginable cause that people can believe in. Bottom line, we welcome protest in our country but you just cant do it anywhere you want and legally disrupt the daily lives of the "masses" And just as a remider "These demonstrations do not even remotely reflect the opinions of the citizens of MY GREAT COUNTRY!"
Just my take on yet another "Anti" flame.
Jamie

By markz (200.193.226.228) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

Thousands of people in the streets of NY including relativos to people who died in september 11 doesnt reflect the opinions of citizens in your GREAT COUNTRY? I can see how you respect other peoples opinion.

By markz (200.193.226.228) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

By markz (200.193.226.228) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 01:14 pm:

Thousands of people in the streets of NY including relatives to people who died in september 11 doesnt reflect the opinions of citizens in your GREAT COUNTRY? I can see how you respect other peoples opinion..

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
----------

Samuel P. Huntington

By homefront41 (Homefront41) (198.81.26.142) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 02:20 pm:

There are many times more signs of support for the troops and the president her in the U.S. But they aren't noisy and don't break the law, so they aren't on the news.

Let this be over soon and get our people home safely. BK

subdued-desert flag

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 02:22 pm:

Don't be upset Markz. I do value other people's opinions if they are based on at least some fact and have some substance. What I don't like is people who are uninformed trying to tell Americans how we think. It seems that you didn't read my post very well. I said that "SOME" people that protest in these groups are radical and tend to be violent, most of them are not that way and would be very happy to protest in a peacefull manner. It is the "bad apples" that give these protests a bad rap. The fact is that right now 70% of Americans or more approve of military action and that is why I say "THEY DON'T REPRESENT THE MAJORITY". During these demonstrations we have to keep in mind that our law enforcement officers have to maintain order and be aware of increased terroist threat so people who are going to turn a demonstration into a "RIOT" will be arrested. The quote was nice but It could very well be applied to Saddam and his Regime. That quote to me means very little and would be argued by a lot of Americans. I mean, "organized violence" has been used by every single culture in the world has it not. Anybody that has fought a war has had an Army which operated under the premise of "organized violence". Terrorists who blow themselves up in a car for a "religious" reason I guess could be classified as "unorganized violence" how long has that been going on and where has it gotten them? I don't know if you are from America or not but if not, don't us 9-11 to your advantage against any American in a debate. I like these posts, but I think that obvious "anti-american" statements (and that doesn't mean anything I dont agree with) need to be shot down. Keep em comin!
Jamie

By Joaol (200.193.226.228) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 05:27 pm:

Yes and if you see the quote says that the reason that west has won the world because it has a better organized violence not because the best ideals and ideas . And whats the difference of unorganized violence and organized violence? They both kill. Whats the difference of dropping 3000 bombs in a city or droping two atomic bombs in civilians then throwing an airplane to a tower? The same thing. What you call "terrorism" is the same thing us is doing and has done lots of times "State terrorism" using force to control cultures and people. I am from brasil and the us has fucked this country throught the entire 20 century and i didnt see the us saving and liberating us from the dictator ship we had here, can you please please please tell me why you , the heroes of freedom , leaders of the free world, didnt help us when we were on a dictator ship? Oh i know our dictator ship was with you ,our dictators were friends with the usa ,they werente comunist!! Well you dont see me apreciating from saving us from comunism , and you dont see the families of those who were killed and tortured here fighting against the dictator ship.

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.87.124) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 07:27 pm:

By Jacob Levich

BUSH'S ORWELLIAN ADDRESS: HAPPY NEW YEAR -- IT'S 1984
Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Bush effectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya.

No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred. The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient. And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.

He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell couldn't have named it better. By turns folksy ("Ya know what?") and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared.

Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania:

WAR IS PEACE
A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
"Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial.

It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised.

Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.

The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist. It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.

http://www.themightyorgan.com

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 08:00 pm:

Ok, you guys win! I will just keep on being an American and be proud to be an American. I will not forget the great sacrifes that have been made to allow me the wonderfull life that I have. Regardless of what anyone on this post says, I know that there is no other place I would rather live than where I am at. I'm done posting on this topic because its all been said. I quess I expected a more patriotic crowd on this web site but it appears to be not so. It humors me that a select few are so anti-American on a website that is dedicated to a Very Patriotic American (Eugene Roe). I mean, I expect varying opinions on issues and there are contributers to this post who seem to be very logical in their views though they may differ from mine or someone elses. (Johnathon is the best example I can think of). But, there is blatent Anti-Americanism here. It those minds are already made up. So, I'm done beating this dead horse! This time I absolutely promise to shut up and not contribute to this post anymore. Hope to talk to some of the more rational members in other posts.
Jamie

By Stephanie Ambroos (Freaky) (80.200.248.200) on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 05:45 am:

Jamie,
When I talk to my friends about Amarica we mostly talk about a dream really since I was a child I'm dreaming of once in my life going to Amarica and most of the people I know dream about it! yesterday I met an Englisch guy on a rockfest and on one way we started talking about the war and he make me see how you people see it and now I really respect what you have been saying really allthough I still have mine opinion I knw really understand what you have been saying!
Now most of the anti's here on this topic aren't against Amarica don't think that because I still think Amarica is a dream for most people of us they just are against a war (you probobly knew that a long time ago but yeah well :-D ) I hope you stay posting on this topic because everybody need to know the opinion of a real Amarican but maybe you're right, everything has been said allready!

Stephanie

By robert hunt (Mulder) (195.92.168.171) on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 08:28 am:

Jamie, I am not a warmonger but I think America and Britain are doing the right thing going after Saddam. My dad fought in the last war for freedom from a tyrant and now we are fighting another tyrant, one who has killed thousands of his own people, and I am proud of Tony Blair and George Bush for standing up for what is right. I am scottish and I don't forget what the americans did to help the British in the last war. Nobody wants war but sometimes it is neccessary for the greater good. Regards Mariane.

By Celeste Valenzuela (Lushybubls) (12.213.16.217) on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 09:39 am:

Jamie,

I agree with your sentiments. God Bless the US.

-C

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 02:08 pm:

I'm totally with you guys,

God Bless the USA, Bless the soldiers who are fighting bravely in Iraq, watch over them...

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.199.141) on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 04:40 pm:

"I don't think Race, Religion or Nation matters a damn.

"The only thing that matters is Justice.

"I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved".

Shaara - The Killer Angels

Regards, Jonathan.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 04:44 pm:

Penil,
take your anti American and anti Bush rants somewhere else. This site is dedicated to Americans - Americans who, heaven forbid, fought in a war! There is a lot of intelligent discussion going on here - your posts - even your borrowed ones, aren't adding to the discourse.
"What"
No one is being arrested for protesting - not a single actor that spoke out against the war last night has to worry about that. The people being arrested are the ones that are disrupting the ability for other Americans that are trying to live their lives, drive their cars and go to work. When I can't get to work or get home because protesters are blocking the street - those people are, and should be, arrested.
Markz
Those 1000 people don't represent even a third of our country - I saw two demonstrations this weekend - both pro-american - and you won't see them in the US press, much less the foreign press.

The tapes released this weekend regarding POWs is enough reason for me that this regime must be stopped and even without the WMD, these guys must be hunted down and brought to justice. It's all coming - we are going to find the WMD, the proof of torture, and the connections to terrorism

Japan attacked us Joaol - there are a ton of differences between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and 9/11. I personally thought we should have demonstrated the atom bomb of the coast of Japan, but the fact remains - fewer Japanese civilians died with those two bombs than would have died in a full scale invasion - it did bring about the end of the war and that was a good thing. I don't think 9/11 was designed to end the conflict

By Aya (Aya) (203.120.44.8) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 10:49 pm:

Michael Tatu, Jamie, Danny, Jonathan, Steve L. and all else:

I suppose it's better late than never with this. It comes from right here and here, nowhere else. *patting my heart and temples*

Under different circumstances perhaps our relationships with one another would not be so stretched thin and strained. [If I have phrased that wrong, please feel free to correct me.] Hopefully in time to come the tension will ease up and dissipate altogether. The site owners have been very kind enough not to censure us and delete this thread. For what it's worth, all that have been said and / or done here just about covers it - whether or not we have all learned anything through our debates here, we have STILL learned a lot from one another at some other time in some other place, despite our differences. I honestly and sincerely hope that any and every amicable tie already forged amongst you through old discussions on other threads, will continue after this. It's going to be very difficult but it's not impossible. If it doesn't start from us then I just hope others elsewhere around the world will take over the baton.

Last I heard the news on the radio at 0930hr today is that the coalition forces were 90km away from Baghdad. I'm not tuned in to the radio from work right now but even as I write this, they are still closing in on their target(s) if they haven't already reached their marks. I have been asking myself tonnes of questions, especially from the perspective of a very young child (my thanks to my 5-yr old neighbour), some of them being: WHAT IF coalition forces cannot find "weapons of mass destruction"? On the other hand, if such weapons do exist there, WHAT IF coalition forces move in to the target(s) only to be blown apart by their very objective(s)? Or WHAT IF those weapons are not there, but elsewhere, and WILL be used elsewhere? Don't have to answer all that, though. Don't even have to answer them at all. Heck, a 5 yr old asked me all that and I just stared blankly at him. I had some answers ready for him but they didn't pop out, and I couldn't even bat an eyelid. He may have been eavesdropping and then parroting adults, but I know this boy and he is unlike any other kid.

Peace and / or freedom are already so fragile out there. We all have our own ways of preserving or fighting for them, for them alone it matters little which side we're on or if we've even taken a side. For now perhaps let us continue to focus on what each and everyone of us separately and privately feel we ought to or can do, to provide support however we wish to and for whatever reason(s) we have. Derek Tircuit and Chris Langlois have already started on that. I myself have taken the liberty of getting a friend to pass along a message for me while I was elsewhere, through another thread on this site. I truly mean neither harm nor insult for that. It's in an off-topic part of the site and this is after all a public posting area. We all see different angles to a tapestry and that's what either makes the picture pretty or ghastly indescribable. The tapestry is called The World.

Anyway... I can't quite remember what else I wanted to say. So this is it for now. Everybody please take care and godspeed.

This one is for Jamie: Public apology! I owe you a small clarification on the juvenile stunt I pulled on you when I last posted in this thread. It was not something I wanted to rub in your nose, and it wasn't anything I wanted to specifically prove to anybody. You are one of those whom I have always respected for your own firm beliefs and values, whatever they may be. [Some may say "balls" to my intention here and claim that I'm sucking up to you but hey, they can think what they like.] Like everyone else, you are free to express yourself however you wish to and I have no right to point you in a direction you may not have wanted to go. I just felt it odd that your usernames changed with every post that came from your IP address; I personally feel that if you are as proud a citizen of your nation as you have always been, you wouldn't be using pseudonyms. I know there is another IP address in this thread that kept changing usernames; never mind that one, but after some of the other posts I've read from you, I didn't want my impression of you to change to anything less - could have come right out and asked you direct but anyway... *waving it aside* This stemmed from another similar incident but the other 3 guys weren't as big as you to continue using your usual username after that. I don't always come out and say such things like this openly to just anyone (or even publicly at that).

If I had unwittingly caused you to bear hard feelings or suffer embarrassment in any way from this, please accept my apology. Truce? *offering handshake*

Aya

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 05:36 am:

The first time I used an alias, I had misplaced my password and was responding in with a "patriotic" tone.

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 07:18 am:

Aya,
No offense taken by your detective work. I've seen the same thing by various people who post. I know about the IP address thing. I have nothing to hide, I'm proud of who I am and especially proud when dealing with certain statements that have been posted. We rational individuals who post can relate to each other and respect each other's views and we know who we are. I can tell by reading other posts of your's that you are much the same as me in the fact that you maintain a "sense of neutrality" with these issues which I think speaks volumes about a persons personality. We are from different parts of the world and may be swayed slightly more or less to one side or point of view because of our geography and maybe "misunderstanding of each other". If only world leaders would exercise their opinions in this manner, posts like this would not exist. I know I promised not to post again "in defiance" of my American beliefs because it is obvious that certain individuals who have been here are "hard line ANTI American". I do though have the deepest respect for Aya, Johnathon (he always seems to hold the show together and has a very open mind to these issues, seems like a pretty smart guy too.),Tatu, and any others that have an open mind to this crisis. As for certain others, (AND THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE) well they can kiss my rosey red-white and blue American Butt
JAMIE

By Joao (200.163.13.35) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 12:04 pm:

Why do you guys dont try to undertand why so many people are anti-american in the world , instead of calling them stupid or telling them to leave and things like it. I think we all need more understanding

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (213.122.252.173) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 01:03 pm:

I remember a rather large street banner being paraded in Pakistan during the Afghan campaign.
It said, "America, stop and think just why so many hate you". A blunt message but with intelligent sentiment.

What the banner alluded to was the simple fact that questions should always be asked about what motivates/drives anything to do what it does?

Any simple accusations from hostile parties alleging that the other is evil/jealous/a threat or whatever is just a case of over simplification.
There is rarely (if at all) black or white, good or evil. Both sides could (with at least some justification) accuse the other of any or all of these. There are always lies, hypocrasy, duplicity and ignorance. "The first casualty of war is truth".

So we are left with the choice of standing by our own convictions, (which in a way is admirable and at least not fickle) and everything that WE hold to be the great truth, or we can choose to exercise our intelligence. By this I do not suggest that an alternate answer should or will arise. Just that if as many facts and angles are put on the table as possible then there would be clearer consciences of all those involved.

The clearer conscience sleeps better, fights better and has such an increased integrity that fewer would be likely to challenge it.

I believe this is why so many of us rally to this site and the veterans for which it stands for. But I also believe this is why we debate as passionately as we do about the current conflict.
We debate so passionately because we care, and that in itself is no bad thing.

May providence or whatever you believe in protect our forces and the innocent and speed an agreeable resolution to this conflict.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.53.156) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 03:48 pm:

Firstly, I apologise for the Bush/1984 article which I posted earlier, but surely one must be able to see the very possibilities of what the article argues, about the restriction of freedoms which could be brought about as a result of the creation of the department of Homeland Security.
Secondly I am not an anti-American. As strange as it may seem, I have American relatives in New Jersey. There are aspects of your culture which are great. For example, what would music be like without such great American bands as the Red Hot Chili Peppers or the Beach Boys!? I'm not particularly against American people or culture. I am just against the attitude of the British and American administration at present, by completely bypassing and ignoring conventions and organisations in order to declare a war which most other nations are against. It is worrying what could happen when this war is over. Will the USA and Britain then go back to obeying the UN tells them, after they completely ignored it to declare an illegal war?
As Michael Moore stated at the Oscars last night, this war is being fought by Bush for 'ficticious reasons'.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 04:41 pm:

Michael Moore was booed off the stage, while Adrian Brody was given a standing ovation. The difference? Brody expressed a sincere desire for peace, while Moore's rant was just a partisan bashing of Bush - did Moore cry out when Clinton bombed Kosovo(without UN approval)? No. Two thirds of this country doesn't take Moore seriously.

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 08:57 pm:

You guys are probably all real nice people in person, if I met you somewhere and didn't know each other's views we might get along great. And just to let you know, there are issues that I can disagree with amongst my own family members and argue about but I still respect them and maybe sometimes more because of their strong stance on what they believe to be true. So here I go again spouting off as usual.

Illegal war? Wrong! We seem to be one of the only countries that even follows Geneva Convention rules during war and there is nothing illegal about this war. What should be illegal is the UN allowing Saddam to terrorize his people and the world for the last 12 years.
Micheal Moore? How many other people have been "booed" at the Oscars. This guy get larger every time I see him. If he would spend as much time excercising as he does being such a putz, it may reduce global warming and the guy should either grow a real beard or get off his lazy butt and shave. He is not a good representation of the "American population" And most people I know do not even know who he is.

I don't know about anybody else but as this conflict presses on, most people are seeing and realizing what the Intelligence community has know all along.
1. This is a regime that is probably the worst of all terrorist organizations.
2. They are using their own people as shields.
3. They have chemical plants in the "middle of the desert that are highly camoflauged.
4. They are using hospitals as barracks for their fighting units.
5. They are ready to use chems and bios all of a sudden that they claim they have not had for 12 years.
6. In a military installation disquised as Hospital today, they found 3,000 chem suits and respirators along with ancetodes to fight chem or bios.
7. They are shooting at us from Mosques and Daycare centers and hiding behind women and children.
8. They are posing as Americans in American uniforms, allowing their own troops to surrender and then executing them.
9. The people of Iraq "DO WANT TO BE LIBERATED FROM THIS REGIME" In Basra today, civilians were helping the Allies fight against the terrorists that they have lived in fear of for many years.
10. Look at the treatment of POWS, of course this does not surprise us Americans or Brits because they did this in the Gulf War.

Every day this war is more justified and even in the UK, as events unfold, support is growing. Now with all of this going on, the French seem to only be worried about "Post War Iraq" and wether or not they are going to get a piece of the pie in rebuilding Irag. Hopefully only if they open a giant "croisantte" factory.
I'm sorry but at what point will people start seeing that we are doing needs to be done and is going to be done. SADDAM'S REGIME IS FINISHED! Maybe not today, or tommorow, but it is FINISHED!
The Britney Spears song comes to mind right now "OOPS I DID IT AGAIN" Call me an addict to this post. Maybe I need to start a "12 step program
Take care all, even Penil and Joao. As I said, you guys are probably really alright,(outside of this post) If you guys weren't here, there would be nothing to post.

By Aya (Aya) (203.120.44.8) on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:29 am:

*fanning Jamie fervently* My elders always say "never break promises" but this particular promise, Jamie? Trust me: just break it than to have to go cold turkey on it.

Jonathan: I saw that banner, too. There's another one running loose (if it's not the same one) and used in a demonstration almost immediately after the Jenin/Nablus massacre.

On another note. I didn't quite know where to mail this but since this thread has been very active on the crisis in Iraq, I'll just paste this link here and copy this whole post over to the other off-topic thread titled "Relief Donations for Iraqis", so that any further discussion(s) on this issue alone can appropriately carry on there and not here.

Voices from peace-team folks in Iraq. Some of you may be interested to take a look-see.

http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/search.cgi

Any problems clicking on the URL, let me know.

Aya

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 12:14 pm:

Well, maybe I will just work at not taking certain remarks quite "personally" because after all, we are not equally informed and negative remarks made here do not really affect "my reality" which is based on my beliefs, the information that I gather and my understanding of "true freedom" (which I believe should be a divine right of all human beings and those who try to stand in the way of that divine right shall be destroyed)
Whew! Maybe that is somehow "quote-worthy"
If we can all agree on one thing, can we at least agree that all people are entitled to have "personal freedom" and that should be granted to all people at birth.
This is my lame attempt to get everyone in this post to at least agree on something
Thanks
Jamie

By Filip (200.163.13.72) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:33 am:

Hey jamie maybe instead of michael moore starts to exercise to reduce global warming , the united states shouldnt have left world treatis like kyoto , that countries should reduce the level of gases.
And the us has no right to talk about international law because you dont respect international laws why should others respect? You dont care about the un and step oper international laws. And i want to know whats the difference of showing american pows on tv and iraqis pows on tv because i saw them both, and including one that an american soldier said to the iraqi pows: " SHUT THE •••• UP, NOW" now , if an american pow had received such treatment it is called crime of war.
And you also are responsible for the beggining of this war, and war is not like you see in holywood all glorious and that.. war is durty its bloody and how Jonathans said no side is inocent.

By Brook Seifert (Brook_Seifert) (12.23.0.60) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:46 am:

Filip,
Let me ask you...have you seen the pics of American soldiers with bullet holes between their eyes? I can't see your point about how Iraqi soldiers are being spoken to, compared to rather disturbing pictures...

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 12:06 pm:

I am humored once again.
Jamie

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 12:18 pm:

I agree with Brook, we treat our POW's great, so great in fact that many of them came to "Our Great Country" after the first war. Filip, if you don't see the difference in treatment, and do not know anything about our track record of handling of POWS, I'm sorry but when you are dealing with large numbers of POWS that do not speak the same language and many of whom are "hostiles" you simply can't allow them to talk amongst themselves. Even your mentality can figure out the reason for that. There is a huge differnce between telling someone to "shut the *%#@#@ up" and forcing them to shut up by putting a bullet between their eyes. Maybe in your country (wherever that may be) you do not see the distincion between the two. You are obviously another "ticked off anti-American" individual. What even brings you people to such a great site? "GET A FREAKING CLUE PEOPLE" and read the past posts because this has all been covered already!

JAMIE

By steve lundy (Breechblock) (216.209.116.50) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:08 pm:

With what they have shown here in the news papers, NOBODY will come out of this without blood on their hands.
Steve.

By Stephanie Ambroos (Freaky) (80.200.248.203) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:46 pm:

about the POW's Flip I have to agree withe brooke and jamie I read about Iraq soldiers executing (I don't know how to spel it so :-S )the American POW's I don't think America has ever done such a thing like that with other POW's !!

By Brook Seifert (Brook_Seifert) (12.23.0.60) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 03:23 pm:

Stephanie,
On a side note, during World War Two, the U.S. sent POW's to the U.S. to work on farms in the Midwest until the war was over...

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 03:47 pm:

filip
let's get serious, shouting at a POW while trying to maintain order is a war crime? As far as the curse goes, it may be the only English word the Iraqi soldier knows.
On the other hand, what the Iraqis did is a clear violation - if the Iraqis were only shouting at them, I am sure we would not be complaining - it's the bullet to the head that has us the most upset - the video is sick and so are the supporters of this regime.

By Filip (200.163.13.72) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 05:33 pm:

I was not refering to the killing of americans POWS,that sure is a crime, by iraqis but donalds rumsfeld said: " it is a crime of war to show pows in demenead situations" and that both sides did but no one is accusing CNN or other american tvs of being bad.
And i am not sayinng that killing pows is not an war crime. And what i am also saying is that if an Arab tv showed american pows layed on the ground and an iraqi yelling with him you would be pissed off and would say is a war crime.

And i dont renember us soldiers been judged by their crimes in vietnam

By Brook Seifert (Brook_Seifert) (24.239.146.113) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:25 pm:

I disagree with you. As was stated earlier by Jamie earlier, there is a HUGE difference between yelling at someone who is a POW, and putting a bullet in their head. You would expect that there would be yelling by the captors, primarily because of the language differences. And speaking of Vietnam, do you know how many of our POW's never came home?

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:47 pm:

The way that our troops handle a "hostile" pow is no different than our law enforcement or any law enforcement has to deal with hostile criminals during an arrest. I think to compare the resistance of "irrational soldiers" who may have a deathwish already and our soldiers, some of whom have extensive pow training is ridiculous. Our soldiers when captured are focused on survial and are well aware of how other countries treat POWs. The opposing forces on the other hand really have nothing to fear, I mean in most cases being a POW in the hands of America is a whole hell of a lot better than the living conditions that their country gives them on a daily basis and in the field as soldiers. How would Iraq even handle 3,000 + POWs. I'll tell you how "FIRING SQUAD". The American soldier is a well trained survivalist, Iraqi soldiers are "armed puppets of Saddam". Our surviving examples of mistreated POWs from past wars tells a story! The American spirit is perhaps the hardest to break in the world. Our Captors know this. As ••• backwards as it sounds, We have a very admiral history of battered POWs. AND FOR THAT I SALUTE! Even when total control is in the hands of our enemy, "THEY DO NOT WIN!"

By Evelyn (Evelyn18kk) (66.46.60.173) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 08:09 am:

Hello all, sorry I haven't posted in a long while. Finally got back from my trip to TX. Was reading up on yalls posts on this war with Iraq. Was thinking I should give my 2 cents as well.

For one, I am glad that Bush is finally hopefully putting an end to Saddam. Its been what 12 years since his father was at war there. I was told not long ago, how when Bush's father was president in the 1992 war in Iraq, that in Basra the people were so happy to see the Americans coming in, but once they left, Saddam murdered many in Basra...we see the after effects of it! People are afraid there. I hope all this makes sense, and is fact! Can anyone back me up on this?

I also find it hard to believe that Saddam and his regime would be so cruel to the POW's, what is the status of them by the way? Have they all been executed? Or do we still not know all the facts? As far as I'm concerned, Saddam is just like a Hitler! I learned that Hitler allowed the Red Cross in the concentration camps, in which Saddam in comparison is the opposite, however, Hitler murdered all those Jews and normal people, Saddam, I don't see how he is different. The way he treated the Kurds in the North of Iraq, is just disgusting. In my opinion, he needs to be ousted. However I hope that someone with more democratic views gets into power there eventually. (Again I hope I speak fact!!)

Lastly, I want to express my apologies for Canada. I am ashamed that my country is not for this war and not supporting the States. Yall have helped us out in times past! How dare we think we shouldn't be helping yall! Now we haer reports that "maybe" as our PM says, there are troops in Iraq from Canada. I think our PM is going nuts...honestly, whats with this maybe stuff?? Give us the truth for once!! Man he makes me mad!!! Please excuse me!

Anyway, Sorry this is fairly long...hope it all makes sense!!

Bye for now,
Evelyn

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 11:51 am:

It all makes perfect sense Evenlyn, and yes, the fear of the people is our biggest enemy and hopefully with aid they will quickly pick good over evil. Thousands tried to leave Basra yesterday but were shot at by Saddams "lunatics" so many returned. We will eventually anhilate the forces one-by one and then the world will see what the people of Iraq really want "FREEDOM" But the thing I agree with the most is that "yes, these people are afraid" but, if given the chance they will quickly realize that the allies hold the key to their futures, the key to "FREEDOM".
Thank you for contributing to the post Ev.
Jamie

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.96.254) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 12:53 pm:

It makes total logical sense for the Coalition troops who are looking after the Iraqi POW's (where are the MP's for Pete's sake?) to treat them with dignity. One day those POW's will be citizens of post-Saddam Iraq and they will tell others how they were treated.

This war is being fought on many fronts and "Hearts and Minds" is the key. The POW situation is really part of the PR situation. Why go to all the trouble and expense of aiding the Iraqi people only to have it undermined by the treatment of their POW's? My money's on most of the POW's not really being pro-Saddam, anyway. Coerced is a word that comes to mind.

If the Coalition wants to find a long term solution to the Middle East then it is at times like this that they have the best chance of influence. Not by words, but by deeds. If a primary objective is to win over the Iraqi's by liberation, food and medical aid then mistreating their POW's would be an act of lunacy that would undermine these efforts.

On another note, it might pay to be guarded with the "freedom" concept. As with any other concept, it tends to be a loose term and very much open to interpretation, no matter how noble the sentiment might be. This is the Middle East, after all.....

Fingers crossed, Jonathan.

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 04:52 am:

Evelyn, i feel with you,
I feel damn ashamed of myself that the country i live in does not want to support the US in a militairy way. I live in Holland, and right now our government is a pretty mess ( because of two politicians who rule here, and do not agree in some things with each other, what makes Holland a pretty mess) And i'm mad that they refuse to help the US. They helped us too in WW2 !!!!!!! ( Now i'm thinking of Operation Market Garden, liberation of Eindhoven.)

A few days ago me and my mom had long disgusion,I wanted to go to Iraq and help the US/UK troops, and my mom told me i coudn't go. That night was the most terrible night, i felt so hopeless...

I hope some people here now do understand, that they don't need to blame country's for not supporting this War, because that desision is made by politic, just one or two men... please keep that in your mind, for if that thought might cross it.

Le.

By fiddlerboy (61.9.84.96) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 05:40 am:

I don't want to offend anyone. I have felt that the war in iraq have provoked me to write this post. These past days, I browsed over this site without reading this thread of messages. But now, after I saw the effects of Baghdad bombing recently, I ruminated on the fact that there are many people starving and thirsting and dying because of the seige. Yes, in a war, one can expect a number of people to die...Maybe, the media have over paraphrased the civillian casualities.

My only prayer is that this war will end as soon as possible.

By fiddlerboy (61.9.84.96) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 05:40 am:

I don't want to offend anyone. I have felt that the war in iraq have provoked me to write this post. These past days, I browsed over this site without reading this thread of messages. But now, after I saw the effects of Baghdad bombing recently, I ruminated on the fact that there are many people starving and thirsting and dying because of the seige. Yes, in a war, one can expect a number of people to die...Maybe, the media have over paraphrased civillian casualities.

My only prayer is that this war will end as soon as possible.

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 07:15 am:

Leonie, I think that most people here, if they feel resentment, it is toward France, Germany, Russia, And China because of their "absolute" resistance to the Allied Cause. I know people have blamed this whole mess on America, but these countries who have resisted are major suppliers to Iraq's weapons progams, even in the last 12 years and we are destroying that now. Everyone has aided in some way of creating this "monster" some a lot more than the US (France) It just so happens that the "Coalition of the Willing) have taken it apon themselves to take out the monster.

Fiddlerboy, I don't think you are offending anyone by expressing your concern. The fact is, though, that something like 4,000 to 5,000 children a month are starving in Iraq and have been for a long time. And yes some of this is due to sanctions and certain people will blame that (and everything else on the United States) This is mostly due to the disregard for the people of Iraq from their leadership. The "oil for food" program money has been directed toward what we are currently destroying, "Saddam's Regime". Saddam has had the money to take care of his people and has had the choice to drop his weapons with the result being dropped sanctions and he has made the wrong choices. I was reading a report that said in an 8 year period up to 1998 1,200,000 people died in Iraq as a result of the choices of its leaders, by starvation or disease. Thats not even counting the endless cold blooded killings. The humanitarian aid is already starting to flood into Iraq, a country that is already accostomed to starvation on a daily basis. With new leadership and aid from the Allies, Iraq will flourish in the future.

By Leonie ten Cate (Lechan) (217.120.162.33) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:22 am:

jwicks, i totally agree with you. Thank you for your comment.

And some -one here thought that the US should treat it's POW's better? I dissagree with that. Look what the Iraqi's do with the US POW's, you can not ressemble these ways. Saddam's soldiers hit the US prisoners with sticks and belts, they hold a gun to their heads to thread, and i'm even almost sure of it they will rape the female prisoners. The US gives their POW's food, water and a place to sleep in.

I would rather get yelled at, than get hit with a stick or a gun. But maybe that's just my oppinion...

By Filip (200.163.13.72) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:27 am:

If the us was really concerned about world hunger it would be spending billions of dollars to fight this enemy not another enemy with bombs and missiles and it would be participating in world forums to discuss world hunger and comparing this 4000 to 5000 children who died of hunger on iraq well there are some countries in the world that this number is a lot worst and i dont see you talking about their hunger problems , only iraqis right? And about vietnam how many women and children , mothers and fathers didnt comeback to their familis were they lived? War is hell and no side is inocent! . Well i am not posting on this post again and i can only see how democracy can create fanatics just like dictatorships can.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (213.122.230.35) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 11:19 am:

Please don't be too harsh with your judgements. Such a strategy can create the very things that we are posting about, after all?

This thread seems to have established a pattern now. Those of us who post quite regularly have matured in our writings, even if we still do not agree. Views expressed tend to be a little more palatable these days compared to a short time ago.

Then we sometimes have those who have only joined in recently and have a desire to express their views in a somewhat more passionate way. I find this normal and totally acceptable. Stops the thread getting boring, too! However, I would request that folks who join this thread read all of the previous postings and then carefully consider their response. Hell, I'd love the idea of a new and different perspective joining every day. I only wish some folks from the Middle East would join in, too!

The trick is to not alienate the other readers by an extreme point of view, though. If the other readers are alienated, they're not going to digest
half of what a person says and an opportunity is missed.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.5.140) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

Surely if everybody wanted to get rid of an evil regime that has for the past 60 years indoctrinated it's population and established a totalitarian state in which many millions are starving and suffering under the brutal leadership, then the USA should go and invade North Korea? oops just remembered, they have nuclear technology and a powerful army.

By Brook Seifert (Brook_Seifert) (24.239.146.113) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 03:38 pm:

Was that really necessary???

By fiddlerboy (61.9.84.91) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 07:08 pm:

Jonathan, thanks for the idea. indeed, if someone from the middle east would join us here, i think it would broaden our ideas, if not, a little, perhaps.

By al (Statetrooper) (205.188.209.69) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:49 pm:

It appears that everyone posting here is intelligent so I'll try to keep it plain. I feel that the list of nearly 10 objectives presented by Gen. Franks doesn't really help anyone understand why we went over seas. However, I do not mind this military operation taking place. Here's a quick opinion of why. We tried to protect our nation from "additional" terrorist attacks. In doing so, one of the most infamous straight forward killers&funders of terrible acts would not comply with minor regulations. While questioning why there was this hesitation, this nation was presented the audio tape of Iraqi leaders talking about 'hiding' their weapons (i.e. missiles.)Seeing this as posing a future threat we came up with a military operation and in the process thought not only to protect ourselves, protect the world, and give a new freedom to the general(non extremist)populas of Iraq. In addition, 55 other nations agreed this was a good plan, even if they are not all in Iraq with us.
It takes two sides for diplomacy to work. War is not the first choice to bring about change. It takes force to remove someone who has built up decades of tyranny. And most of all, Freedom is not Free. Thank God for the men and women in the past, present and future who are willing to die for it!

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 09:12 am:

Yep, that's about as straight forward as it gets Al. Now today the Vice President of Iraq is threatening more homicide bombings and encouraging more of them saying that they will do anything to kill the enemy. Every day is more and more justification of this cause. The one fact that I stand behind the strongest is that this regime is the "MOTHER OF ALL TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS" in the world. Everyone involved in this government is corrupt even the guys we let in the UN security council. Did anyone see how the Security Council Monkeys sat around the other day and actually let that Iraqi idiot spout off. In my eyes, anyone who supports Iraq under the regime of Saddam and makes excuses for this regime is "a terrorist". If you support terrorists you are a terrorist.

By Joao (200.163.13.72) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 12:32 pm:

if you honest believe that this 55 nations who agreed this was a good plan, agreed because they were afraid of iraq...

By al (Statetrooper) (205.188.209.69) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 01:29 pm:

I don't remember stating that the other nations were "in fear" of Iraq, but if you want to find hairs to split -- go ahead. If you honestly believe Saddam has not been a terroristic tyrant and deserves to be ignored then there are some deep seeded issues which cloud your vision.

This is straight from the Iraqi Regime Leaders:
--Calling the tactic a "ROUTINE MILITARY POLICY," Saddam's regime threatened MORE such attacks on Americans and Britons - even on THEIR OWN soil.
The bomber, POSING as a taxi driver, struck Saturday, killing himself and four soldiers. He pulled up close to a roadblock north of the holy Shiite city of Najaf, waved to American troops for help, then blew up his vehicle when they approached.

Let me also add this to the posts, Saddam gave this coward/suicidal murderer's family over $30,000. I hear in the USA this guy's family would live in shame, not be rewarded. But maybe I'm wrong.....

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 04:14 pm:

Well, lets imaganine for a moment, our country's most hardened criminals, murderers, rapists, meth-heads, which we have locked up in maximum security prisons. Now imagine letting them out, arming them, and giving them a specific agenda with no real rules to achieve that agenda. The United States or any country would be a pretty scary place (even though we have a very heavily armed society thanks to the Constitution). What if someone like our worst serial killers where to gain a position as President and implement policy based on their sickness and desire for power with no regard for human life or the prosperity of our country. Imagine that everywhere you turned their was a painting of that person to serve as a constant reminder that there is no escape from their power. Oh, wait a minute, I've just painted a perfect picture of Iraq.
Jamie

By Joao (200.163.13.72) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 06:29 pm:

Well you painted a perfect picture of several countries in the world and including pictures that your country suported over the 20 century. Why is that?

By Joao (200.163.13.72) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 06:30 pm:

Well you painted a perfect picture of some other countries countries in the world and including countries that your country suported over the 20 century. Why is that?

By Brook Seifert (Brook_Seifert) (24.239.146.113) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 07:28 pm:

Waht countries are you referring to?

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 10:28 pm:

Here is a perfect example of "America is to blame for everything". Joao, I don't think that anyone here will ever deny that the United States has made mistakes and in hindsight, all countries that are active contributers to world policy make mistakes. Just look at Russia, China, and France and they support, arms and technology that they have given Iraq. Neuclear from France, Bio from Russia, Missles from China. Once you start looking at that support it begins to look like all of the "Old Powers" are using Iraq to plot a conspiracy against the United States in an indirect way. And then, to all vote against us in the UN. Yeh, maybe our policies have some inconsistancies through the years as times change. It's obvious for whatever reason, that you don't like us. When you judge the United States, keep in mind that we are a democracy and our leadership has the potential to change every 4 years. We have democrats and republicans and the views of those parties oppose each other on many issues. This is what makes us a great country and keeps us on the right track, if popular opinion does not agree with current administration, we have the option to elect candidates who will switch directions for us. Yeah, we supported Iraq in the beginning, but without a crystal ball, who knew what that regime would become. You can blame the US for everything bad that has ever happened in the world for all I care but throughout the world, the US has probably done far more good things for countries of the world than the majority of other countries including whatever country you are from. What has your country done for the good of the rest of the world, make a list of positive things that your homeland has done to make a signifcant impact on the good of the world. Tell us where are you from so we can attack you on every single comment you make and put the activities of your government under the microscope. Then, when you tell us where you are from, I will get the stats of what has come out of the United States for your country, be it from the Government or Private organizations. I will bet there will be more going out to you than your country has given back to us. This may be a the basis of a new thread for all the "antis" "WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS DONE FOR YOU AND WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN RETURN" Now, I'm to the point that I will fight off all "anti-american" statements until they either end this thread or kick me out of here.

By yvette thomas (Bettyb) (80.195.86.212) on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 01:04 pm:

hello, haven't been here in a while, but looks like things have exploded here!

only have this to say on the whole Iraq subject:

I HOPE AND PRAY THAT ALL THE INNOCENTS, THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SOLDIERS, AND REPORTERS, GET TO COME HOME SAFELY TO THEIR FAMILIES, SOON, AND THAT THIS WAR IS OVER AS QUICKY AS POSSIBLE, WITH AS LITTLE CASUALTIES AS POSSIBLE. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN ALL THIS IS THAT IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND THE LIVES LOST WILL HAVE NOT BEEN IN VAIN.

Reading some of the posts, i think that some of you would make good politicians!

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 03:29 pm:

Penil,
Some of the guys that were in WWII did invade North Korea at Inchon. I hope you aren't implying that the US only fights weak regimes - we have taken on in our history some of the greatest military forces of the time.
As far as Korea is concerned, the difference is that the weapons that N Korea has can be "traced" instantly - and they know that if they did launch one that their days would be numbered.
On the other hand, the weapons that Saddam has can be easily given to terrorist organization(he may have already distributed some) and would be hard to trace. We can contain North Korea without invading, but we could not contain Saddams weapons without this war. We are addressing and will continue to address the North Korea situation - they should not expect an invasion, but I guarantee every site responsible for the ordering of and the carrying out of nuclear strikes from N Korea is already on our target list - and they won't be conventional weapon cruise missiles if North Korea launches nukes

By Joao (200.163.4.55) on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 05:09 pm:

well jwicks i am from brasil and i want to tell you that my country and all other latin-americans countries thanks and loves the united states for the suport that you gave us during our dictator ships because if it wasnt for you they would have never last! And we also want to thank for the especulation of your investors here in my country for breaking down or economy and for charging for debts that we payed a thousand times! Thanks we love you!!

And i am not anti-american , i like a lot of american things but there a lot of american things that i dont like it either. For example the foreign policy of the us. And no country is perfect not even your country ok?

By al (Statetrooper) (152.163.188.164) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 06:32 pm:

Here is a no brainer.... can somone be 'anti-american' on any level and at the same time be a huge B.O.B. fan?

By fiddlerboy (61.9.84.110) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 09:46 pm:

The brainer above is as hard as a tough walnut to crack, but read this: the degree of anti-americanism vary from person to person.

After reading all the messages, as what Jonathan suggested, I guess a petty war of words is going on in this message thread. what disturbs me is the ongoing war in Iraq and the present American policy. I am keeping it to myself for now because I don't want others to be agitated, I guess for a time maybe.
********
Anne Frank wrote these words below and it confronts the world's cynicism. I hope this speaks much of what I want to speak about.

"If only our country and then Europe and finally the whole world would realize that people were kindly disposed toward one another, that they are all equal and everything else is just transitory!

"Open your eyes... Give of yourself, give as much as you can! And you can always, always give something , even if it is only kindness! No one has become poor from giving! If you do this then in a few generations no one will need to pity the beggar children anymore because they will not exist!

"There is plenty of room for everyone in the world, plenty of money, riches, and beauty for all to share! God has made enough for everyone...Let us all begin by sharing it fairly."

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.52.84) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 04:14 pm:

Band of Brothers is not exactly a series advocating and glorifying war is it? Stop succumbing to the propaganda of the your Media and open your eyes Al and others. And if you all think I'm just a ranting socialist loony, well I'm not for there are others like myself who although support the plight of those troops in Iraq (and mourns those killed by "Friendly" fire), they most certainly do not support the reasons and the fearful consequences of this war.

By al (Statetrooper) (205.188.209.69) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 05:15 pm:

Penil, i couldn't agree with more! the only way i describe B.O.B to people who haven't seen it - is to say, it doesn't glorify war....it simply tells the real story.
The thing i disagree with is your thoughts of me giving in to the media. I HATE the media, t.v. news and news papers -- I dont subscribe to cable because i do not respect 99.9% of the media.
I watch about 2 - 3 hours of t.v. in an entire week most of which is comedy programs while playing with my 2 dogs.
I just support the U.S.A. and any man or woman willing to be "a troop" b/c they do not need any more discouragement than the bullets flying at them.
(i hope none of this will be misread either)
Honestly, i respect your strong sense of conviction.

By Manda (Manda) (128.193.26.153) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 02:15 pm:

Just a little story I ran across in our local paper; I thought it a nice reminder that people should not let their government think for them, no matter where they live or if their opinion is the status quo:

Letter from France supports U.S.

By Graham Kislingbury
Albany Democrat-Herald

Clara Frost received a reminder this week that not all the citizens of France oppose the war in Iraq.

Frost, who teaches French at Linn-Benton Community College, showed the Democrat-Herald a letter she received from her friends, Jean-Paul and Henriette Favrais, who live in Breal, near Normandy.

Jean-Paul sponsored an organization to honor an American pilot killed in Breal during World War II. The pilot, Russell Quinn, whose plane crashed June 13, 1944, one week after the Normandy Invasion, was from Harrisburg. Quinn's sister, Pat Hayworth, still resides in Harrisburg.

Now a retired automobile executive, Favrais was 9 years old when Quinn's plane crashed.

Frost, an Albany resident who first met the French couple in 1997 when they came to Harrisburg for a cermony, translated the Favraises' letter.

"We are thinking very much about your great nation, for your soldiers, pilots, sailors and Marines," the couple wrote. "As it was 60 years ago, we wish to assure you of our gratitude. Here, we are sad to note that our 'poor country,' which owes its liberty to your soldiers, is not at your side to give back liberty to other people. We hope that America vanquishes the terror."

Frost said she was deeply touched by the letter.

"It made me cry because so many people are against us right now. I found it extremely gratifying," she said. "Many, many French people still remember and honor Americans for their part in liberating the French in two world wars."

Stick to your convictions, and remember to respect others. (These two things are not mutually exclusive; you can do both simultaneously!)
Manda

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 12:03 pm:

Hello, me again.
As our devoted men and women CRUSH the Saddam Regime, I can't help but wonder what must be going on in the minds of the "anti's". We are seeing the Iraqi people tearing down symbolic relics of the regime that they have hated for so many years. They are celbrating in the streets and the smiles on the face of the youth in Iraq are the smiles that are seen only on the faces of "free people" Burning a picture of Saddam and taking turns stomping on it. Even the media that he so closely controlled is reporting on the torture chambers that Saddam so highly utalized to his pleasure. Yes, there have been tragedies in the war so far and it is probably far from over but as I watch the images of the Iraqi people, I am reassured as to why I supported this military action. I wonder what it must feel like to be "anti" and watch the Iraq people celebrate their freedom, something that was protested against by so many people. For all who have posted on this site and contributed the Anti American statements, I feel that a big fat, "WE TOLD YOU SO" is slowly approaching.
Thank you and god bless all of the free people in the world.
Jamie

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.135.96.98) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 12:59 pm:

I really cannot remember many posting on this thread that were against the idea of toppling Saddam. What most of the "antis" were against was the way it was initiated, by a couple of impatient nations who had clearly not won the rest of the world (and many of their own people)over.

The issue has grown in complexity as the campaign has progressed and I've found that it was the posts of the "pros" who sought to over-simplify the situation with a "good" versus "evil" argument, which is never truly the case. Also, I have noticed that the initial jewel in the crown of the "pro" argument (weapons of mass destruction) was later overshadowed (as hard evidence of a real and immediate threat has yet to be discovered) by the simple fact that Saddam's regime was evil. On the other hand, the anti war sentiments by the likes of the French Government are laughable. They're constrained by their economic interests and the amount of money Saddam owes them.

There have been accusations and counter accusations on this thread. There has also been quite a lot of misinterpretation and examples of cultural, as well as political divides.

War tends to bring a dramatic upsurge of patriotism and passion. Either of these conditions can be dangerous if left to grow out of realistic proportion and that is what we have found here. Any perceived attack on the "pros" has quite often been conveniently twisted into a perceived attack on the U.S as a whole, which is ridiculous. Counter attacks have involved disrespectful remarks, personal attacks and the rewriting of 20th Century history - such as when the U.S. twice defeated Germany and held communism at bay, single handedly, as the posts actually read. What disturbs me here, is the fact that no-one has really offered to re-phrase their posts, which leads me to conclude that they actually believe that the U.S did do these things.

The anti war sentiment was not supported (around here, at least) by pro Saddam supporters or those who just simply don't like the U.S. (for whatever perceived reason). It was supported by those who simply did not wish to see anyone suffer the consequences that are always involved in war. And we've had suffering in spades.

Rest assured, I'm sure all of us hope that what is unfolding in Iraq turns out for the best and that the troops come safe home.

Regards, Jonathan.

By Brook Seifert (Brook_Seifert) (209.227.119.199) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 02:14 pm:

cnn.com just reported that French President Chirac said his country is "rejoicing" in the fact that Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has collapsed. Is it just me, but does it seem strange that France is so anti-war, but yet they are thrilled that the U.S. has gone in and removed him from power?

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.46.234) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 06:20 pm:

What comes to my mind is that the French have found someone willing to underwrite their financial losses that have resulted through Saddam's removal. Or was that too cynical?

I'm off to browse:
www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com

Regards, Jonathan

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.61.199) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 03:44 pm:

Is all this looting not being physically stopped by Coalition forces because those companies that would have to reconstruct the cities after the war might get a bigger profit?

By Brook Seifert (Brook_Seifert) (209.227.119.199) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 04:04 pm:

Right now, I don't the coalition has the manpower to stop the tens of thousands from looting...

By jwicks (24.220.222.254) on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 12:57 am:

There are 5 million people in Baghdad, snipers, Fedeyeen pockets of resistance and throughout Iraq the surroundings are pretty unpredictable. Realize that there is currently no law enforcement in most Iraq cities. The reason? Because Saddams regime, (Fedeyeen, Secret Police, Repulican Guard, ect.) were the "strong arm of the law". And strong arm they were, if you did something they didn't like, they would put a bullet in your head or deal with you in whatever manner they saw fit on that particular day. They are all gone now, It is to be suspected that people who have been repressed for a 1/4 century and know that their cruel leaders are no more are going to take from the government, the things for which they have suffered. Hell, you'll probably see a lot of Iraqi government items on Ebay. The coalition is now implementing some enforcement on looting but most of the govt buildings have been emptied out. I would think out of 5 million people it is probably a fairly low percentage of people who are actually doing the looting but none the less, that is what we are seeing through the media. Realize that there is really no "currency system" in Iraq and until there is something established, people will be using these items to trade for needed items such as food or necessities. Despite the looters, the Iraqi people who will ultimately make the difference in forming a new nation are amongst some of the more culturally advanced people in the Mid East despite the last 25 years of repression and they are very proud people of their "pre Saddam" culture. All of this aside, yes I do think that reconstruction of Iraq should and will stimulate our economies of certain other countries.(hopefully not the non-willing) who as we dig deeper into the massive weapons caches, have all been doing "very good business" with Saddam as recently as this year. It is more and more appearant as to why the "washed up powers" voted against this military action.

By Evelyn (Evelyn18kk) (66.46.61.44) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 07:41 pm:

Sorry to interrupt with yall again. Was wonder, did anyone think that maybe some of the French do agree with the States? I could very well be wrong! But, what about yall Americans, what do you think about Canada now that we have not backed 100% behind yall? I mean, do you think all Canadians are like Chrietien? Of course not!! Yall know me too well by now...:D
(too opinionated thats me!) anyways, just a thought...what do yall think?

Evelyn...(enjoying the warm weather finally...in Canada)

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.135.5.212) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 05:35 pm:

I really like Canada and those citizens of your nation that I come into contact with. I drive past a war cemetary that is almost exclusively dedicated to Canadians who lost their lives in WW II. The only thing Canadian I'm having problems with right now are your geese. It's spring and they're getting too big and loud for their own good. I had to have a word with some of them yesterday and today.

Regards, Jonathan.

By irene vrinte (Gijoe) (131.174.208.62) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 04:38 am:

OMG
when i read the above messages i am remembered once more of why i more or less stopped posting here...

"The anti war sentiment was not supported (around here, at least) by pro Saddam supporters or those who just simply don't like the U.S. (for whatever perceived reason). It was supported by those who simply did not wish to see anyone suffer the consequences that are always involved in war. And we've had suffering in spades.
Rest assured, I'm sure all of us hope that what is unfolding in Iraq turns out for the best and that the troops come safe home."
(coming from Jonathan)

when i read this i can totally agree with it. nevertheless, i feel something really nasty going on here.

coming from the netherlands, where about 80% of the people is against the war in iraq in the way that it has been, and still is, fought, i have only a few things to say.
first of all is that i am very, VERY worried about everything that's been said in the last couple of days, especially the accusations and warnings made with respect to Syria. needless to say, if Bush goes into war and sends his troops over there, the situation will definately get out of hand.
secondly, i do not at all mean to speak for the french people, (are there any french people on the board?), but when i read something like: "does it seem strange that France is so anti-war, but yet they are thrilled that the U.S. has gone in and removed him from power?" i am just left speechless. the attacks on france and the over-simplifying like above doesn't do the discussion any good. saying that you're glad that the regime has colapsed doesn't mean that you agree with the way in which it was done, and nor should it. you can be comparatively 'happy' (wrong word there) with the end-result of something even if you disapprove of the means to get there and if you feel there should have been another way of achieving it.

as a student of English and also an American Studies student at University, i get a lot of comments. somehow people think that studying American Studies automatically means you are pro-war and agree with everything the US (president) does. but that is not what it is about: i am trying my very best to look at things from a different angle: to come to understand the current cultural and political situations in the US, and to look to the nation's history to explain them. i feel this is not returned: most americans themselves do not care to investigate the cultural and political situations in, for instance, Arab nations, and to try to look at it from another, non-american, perspective.

to make it clear: if you ask me whether i am pro- or anti-war (if one could put it that simple) i have to say i am pro-war, as one of the few in my country. however, this does not mean that i am not critical of everything that's been going on, and i tend to feel a certain sadness when i hear the news. just to give you one example: i heard an american lady saying that she's glad saddam is gone because she doesn't want to be forced to wearing a scarf herself in the future???? has bush really been trying to feed the americans fear, and how many people actually believe saddam would have had the chance to overpower the US and make all women wear headscarfs???? the lady's statement is an absurd one, and worries me: how can she state things so naively?

in my class at university, we have a very mixed group of people: among others dutch people, muslims and also americans who are studying abroad. i don't even care to know if these americans are pro- or anti-war (believe me, i've had enough discussions), but i am assured to see they are at least getting a chance to look at things from a different perspective. it might be good for most americans to spend a few months outside the US!

i am sad to see the isolation of the US getting ever more apparent. not only do they often not agree with Arab nations, the distance between the US and its "allies" in the NATO and the UN is also growing. this position of isolation, i feel, can only do the US more harm and inspire more hatred, and i wish i could somehow make the american people more aware of this.

this was it for now. i will read the responses to my post, and i hope i don't get chewed out by the people that do not agree with me because that would only make my point more clear.

regards,

irene vrinte
nijmegen, the netherlands

ps
one other thing that really depressed me is that i heard the situation during WW2 being compared to the current one. i have seen the cover of the washington post (was it the WP? i think it was?) with the d-day graves in normandy and below it something like: "US betrayed" (or something like that). being enormously grateful for the role the US played in the liberation of also my country, should not imply that you can not be critical of the position of the US at any other point in history. when people tell me i cannot be grateful for what the US did back then and at the same time be critical of the US now, i feel incredibly sad...

By Joshua Eggleston (Jegg9032) (24.64.104.132) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 08:56 am:

What is the U.S. thinking when it says that setting up the new government of Iraq should take around 6 months. To do it properly it will probably take at least 20 years. The U.S. or the U.N. has to educate the people of Iraq on how to function as a democracy. Part of this education is also to change the world view held by many of the Iraqi people. This will take at least one generation

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.142.207) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 12:32 pm:

Irene and Joshua, thanks for your very valid contributions.

I found a number of the posts above to be idealistic in their sentiments. A wish to see and deal with the world as things "should" be and not as they actually are. Idealism versus realism has been one of the features of this thread and the "Major Winters for the CMH" thread where passions ran so high that they got personal.

Then there's the very real issue of who decides how things "should" be, anyway? Plus the concept of "freedom" was aired, which again is subjective to each of our views and standards. In some ways, this helps to illustrate Irene's point.

I'm afraid that Iraq has very few role models in the Middle East where democratic government is concerned. However, where there is a will, there is a way.

Regards, Jonathan.

By alan james o'reilly (Alanor) (62.254.64.5) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 12:39 pm:

I think by now we can see that winning the peace is going to be harder than winning the war - a superbly decisive victory though this has been.

All I wish to do here is to set out what I think will be the vexing questions that now confront national leaders, both here and across the pond; for individual prayer really, I don't think there's a lot else ordinary folk can do.

Despite Saddam's fall, many Iraqis will find it impossible to overlook the extent of civilian casualties suffered. We have already seen one potential replacement for Saddam assassinated 5 days after entering the country - too much like the murder in 1958 of the able, pro-Western Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri Bey. Who, therefore, could assume the reins of power in post-war Iraq without getting shot the next day?

An army of occupation will therefore most likely be needed to keep the various factions apart. For how long? It is impossible to say.

On another front, with the emphasis now having shifted to toppling the dictator rather than neutralising the WMD, this does beg the question, who's next, if the US and UK have taken up the liberator of oppressed peoples mantle. (I'm assuming oil wasn't the main motive for this war.)

I am not saying this is a bad thing but should we now expect coalition drives against N. Korea, Arafat, Gadaffi, Mugabe, the Muslims in Khartoum oppressing black Nubian Christians (longest war in the 20th century, still going on) and the various dissident terrorist groups still within our own borders*? And if not, why not?

*Whose members occupy premises in Westminster, a national disgrace and an insult to every member of HM forces who served in the Province, and their families. Read The Informer by Sean O'Callaghan for details.

A serious precedent has been set.

As a priority though, should not the UK liberate itself from the EU, while our armed forces are still under the command of the British Crown, not Brussels? This present danger is of far greater importance to the British people than any shooting war in the ME. (Unfortunately the main political parties are far too corrupt even to countenance that particular question.)

I have a vested interest in raising these issues. One of our lads is of military age and the other is not far off. Trust recipients can therefore bear with me.

Regards
Alan O'R

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.82.12) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 04:05 pm:

I'll bear with you, Alan. Plus I'll agree with everything you've stated. "Precedent" is definately the word of the moment.

Regards, Jonathan.

By alan james o'reilly (Alanor) (62.254.64.5) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 05:07 pm:

Thanks Jonathan

It's hard getting one's head round this whole business.

The quick military victory is a tremendous gain but the post-occupation future is very uncertain.

The situation could easily become 'volatile'.

Regards
Alan

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 05:52 pm:

Irene,
I have to take issue with the item about the US isolation becoming more apparent - In Europe, we have more supporters than some people think - just because France, Belgium and Germany didn't agree with us, we are isolated? I think it is France and Germany that should consider why they are isolated from all the European countries that support us.
As long as we support Israel, we will not have the support of the Arab States. I think support or maybe respect is a more appropriate word, will build if we do what we say and show that we are not there to occupy Iraq and we leave in a reasonable amount of time and we follow through with our commitments to support establishment of a Palestinian state. That is years, not months away, but I can tell you from our perspective in the US, we do not want to stay in Iraq any longer than need be.
I think it is naive of you to think that we don't look at things from other perspectives, and that we don't travel outside of the US. A lot of us travel and some have even lived in Europe. We do see things from other perspectives - and we have open discussions about them.
I don't feel "betrayed" by the French but I wonder if all this could have been avoided if Saddam thought that the UN was committed to disarming him. I do feel that the people responsible for giving this regime weapons and military equipment during the embargo should be brought to justice - they caused a number of deaths on both sides in doing so. If that is the French or the Syrians, so be it.

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (213.122.249.29) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 06:48 pm:

Hi Michael,

I think that everyone around here would agree that to win the peace over there in and around Iraq is going to be at least as hard as winning the war. The diplomatic situation that you have described in the Middle East is quite correct. I strongly doubt that political rhetoric will put anyone's anxieties at rest. As you've pointed out, it will be the just actions over there that will go a considerable way to silencing the critics. Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone around here will be around to witness the bitter hostility of Muslim and Jew ending. However, one must make a start somewhere and right now, the Coalition has a significant opportunity to make an impact.

I find the situation in Europe at least as complex
but from a purely political point of view. You are correct that the U.S is not isolated and I hope that this is never the case. However, the whole of Europe is clearly devided into pro and anti war factions. Our media has been full of it but it is fair to say that there have been next to no pro war demonstrations that I am aware of.
The pro war stances have been seen to be championed by certain governments. The anti war stances have been championed by some political opposition parties, certain sections of the media and ordinary people.

Thus two factors are at play here: governments are subject to the will of the people if they want to stay in power and it is as yet uncertain just what percentage of the people supported or were against the war.

As I have stated all along. The Bush Administration lost the war for consensus of opinion. They simply failed to convince the majority of nations that there was a justification for immediate action. Why else would so many governments denounce the resulting action taken by the Coalition? In the aftermath and the continuing lack of evidence supporting the stated objective of securing Iraqi WMD the Coalition has little leverage with which to justify what has just happened. Obviously this has not been lost on those governments that did not support immediate action and it would naturally filter down through these governments of individual nations to their people.

The situation is by no means clear or simple. The U.S (in the sense of the Bush Administration)has been seen to make a precedent (as Alan has stated above) and a benchmark for what appears to be required to justify the hostile act of an invasion. This has naturally caused concern with governments and people around the world.

Regards, Jonathan.

By irene vrinte (Gijoe) (131.174.244.2) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 09:03 am:

Micheal,

you said: "In Europe, we have more supporters than some people think - just because France, Belgium and Germany didn't agree with us, we are isolated? I think it is France and Germany that should consider why they are isolated from all the European countries that support us."

i am very sorry to say this, but you really are misrepresenting things. what countries exactly are "all the European countries that support us"? it is safe to say that a great majority of Europeans does not support this war, and although France and Germany (and Belgium) were the only countries that said this out loud, they are not at all isolated from the rest of Europe. on the contrary, even: many people in the Netherlands, for instance, wish our government would have issued a clearer statement than they have done.
and about the isolation of the US i talked about: i was trying to say that i think it is a sad thing that the US becomes more and more isolated, not only because of their war on iraq, but in general: not becoming part of the new court of justice to punish war criminals, not signing the Kyoto treaties, etc. all have to do with this (btw, france and germany DID become part of the court and signed the treaties!).

"I think it is naive of you to think that we don't look at things from other perspectives, and that we don't travel outside of the US. A lot of us travel and some have even lived in Europe. We do see things from other perspectives - and we have open discussions about them."

i wasn't saying that americans do not travel outside the US (hell, an american couple even lives in my house and i share the newspaper the USA Today with them). however, when you say you have open discussions about different perspectives in your country, i cannot wholly agree with you. i understand that in times of war, people tend to be less critical of their government. but, and this is probably a stupid example, when those dixie chicks are banned from the radio and when tv-stations do not broadcast any films starring susan sarrandon, i feel that most americans are glad to cover their ears for fear of hearing other ways of looking at the conflict.
i think that when you look at the UK, things are different. though everyone is expressing support for the troops (and rightly so), there is room for different opinions, and the people who express these are still respected and not looked upon as 'state enemies'. most importantly, i think Blair is doing a great job (and yes, in my opinion a better one than Bush!) trying to explain the people everything the government is doing in iraq and why they do it: Blair, i think, is ready to start a discussion with people who do not agree with him, whereas Bush is avoiding this and is only surrounding himself with people who think like him.

"I do feel that the people responsible for giving this regime weapons and military equipment during the embargo should be brought to justice - they caused a number of deaths on both sides in doing so. If that is the French or the Syrians, so be it."

didn't the US also supply iraq with weapons in its war against iran??!

regards,
irene

ps
jonathan, are you still coming to the netherlands?

By alan james o'reilly (Alanor) (62.254.64.5) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:45 pm:

Just thought folks might like to read a "front line" update from Corporal David Paulson, USMC. (His dad is a Baptist minister in Washington state.)

Concerning the war, what's done is done but I think Corporal Dave's note reflects a degree of magnanimity (tempered with understandable caution) that should benefit ordinary Iraqis, for as long as the Coalition occupies the country.

Regards
Alan O'R

P.S. For a very authoritative overview of the ME situation, as it developed during the first half of the 20th century, setting the stage for today, I strongly recommend "Middle East Diary 1917-1956" by Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, a British officer of Danish extraction who served in the Royal Fusiliers and on General Allenby's staff in WW1. His analysis of the Suez debacle of 1956 is very revealing. Saddam Hussein no doubt took his cue in part from Egypt's Colonel Nasser - as no doubt did Arafat, Gaddafi and all the rest. You will have to check second hand book sources though, as the work is out of print.

Corporal Dave's narrative follows:

"Well, we are back... same place... not Iraq anymore... Army finally made it up there... the Iraqis still don't like us... there were some pretty good fire fights outside our CP... I was inside the building for all of it, but could see the rounds go by the window... there also were a bunch of little pot shots taken... not very accurate though so we only suffered one casualty... and he was just shot in the arm...

"It was a pretty interesting week, but fun :-) Yeah I hate to say it, but I hope to do it again :-) Got some Iraqi souvenirs... even a picture with Saddam :-) Allergies gave us all trouble, a very fertile area... although very smelly, and filthy!

"It is hard to be friendly to the people as you don't know if they are just being friendly now and shooting at you at night... if you hadn't heard we were in the town of Mosul... 3rd largest city in Iraq... and we were keeping the airport from being overrun :-) Army Special Forces were occupying a small "fort", but were very glad to see us when we showed up... although a little disappointed at our numbers :-) For some reason, not all our assets could come in... so we were not even a full strength battalion!

"But now the army has taken over, moving the equivalent of 1/10th of the Marine Corp to occupy the City!!! Anyway, this is just to let ya'll know that we made it back out again safely, and will probably be writing on ships email tomorrow afternoon :-)

"But for tonight I will be on here... Thanks for the prayers...

David

Ps 91 :-)"

By Joao (200.196.121.130) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 04:37 pm:

One of the questions i have is : Will the us let the UN find the so talked weapons of mass destructions or the US will find for themselves ,.if they find it off course, because until now nothing , and even if the US doesnt find it can very well said that found it and show some fake proves like it did lots of times.

By alan james o'reilly (Alanor) (62.254.64.5) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 07:29 pm:

One cannot help but be sceptical of the reason given for the failure to find the WMD, i.e. the country is very big.

I understand that spy satellite technology is extremely advanced these days - from however many miles up there, one of these orbiting sensors could just about read the display on your digital watchface, if the controllers decided to log onto you.

And they can't locate a cache of warheads obviously many times bigger, with all the means at their disposal? Even if they'd been shifted to Iran or some place, like Saddam did with his air force in 1991?

Even if the WMD are underground, some kind of surface access/facility must be visible, demanding closer inspection?

We are supposed to believe that even an area the size of Iraq (or even the whole ME) can't be electronically 'mapped' down to the square inch, with today's technology?

This is yet another reason why the Iraq war as yet defies rational analysis. There are too many unknowns.

Besides the very professional and effective way in which our armed forces have conducted themselves and the evident willingness of the Coalition to provide humantarian aid, only two other things appear to be certain so far:

1. Saddam has been down and outed, well and truly.

2. Many innocent Iraqis have paid a heavy price for their new found and still fragile freedom.

The only way the Coalition can be seen to be "consistent" in the face of this obvious dilemma is to continue to take down other "rogue regimes", according to the "precedent" now set - as indicated in other posts.

Hopefully this can be addressed successfully, with armed intervention as definitely the last resort...

It occurs to me that one thing ordinary citizens in the West can do is to keep reminding their leaders about the issues of "precedent" and "consistency" raised by this conflict. That goes especially for the British PM.

He cannot boast about eliminating one brutal dictator while blithely handing his country over to another - lock, stock and constitution.

He cannot vaunt the success of Coalition forces in disarming one set of terrorists while merely "asking" another set to do so voluntarily and transform themselves into 'peace-niks' overnight.

One might as well walk up to a rabid hyena and ask it not to bite you...

I would urge our cousins across the pond to take careful note. It could happen over there...

Doubtless email could be used to great effect, as a weapon of mass determination in dogging our leaders on these issues.

Regards
Alan O'R

By Joao (200.196.121.130) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 08:59 pm:

What i am amazed about is that the US before the war started had proves that this weapons existed and they werent ocupying(sorry for my bad english) iraq . The US gave us the idea that they knew exactly where this weapons were. And now its hard to find it. Where is the tecnology and the proves the US had that it is not working now to find it? Sure it is a big country but . i dont know lets wait and see but i dont know if i can even believe it when the US shows that they find it . Maybe the UN should do this , because now the new regime will cooperate with the UN right? or they will do exactly like Saddam did .. not cooperating , and found by themselves and expect that everyone believes .. lets see what happens!

By Penil Chhiba (Penil) (80.225.63.116) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 08:04 pm:

I'm amazed that nobody has posted any further on this topic for two months! Is it simply the case that since Iraq has been liberated, it no longer remains an important enough issue and the media then focuses upon other topics?
Well Weapons of Mass Destruction have still not been found, Saddam has not been found, many ancient relics have been looted and still yet to be located etc. What happened to the so-called UN 'trust fund' that was to be set up after Saddam was removed? Why is it taking so long for an Iraqi Government to take over the present administration? The media reported regularly the words of such figures as Jay Garner, who assured us an Iraqi government would take over 'within weeks'.
Forgive me for saying this, but shouldn't Bush be focusing on fighting Global Terrorism? The bombing at Morrocco showed that Al-Queda is still active, and any expectations they might be weakened after Saddam's removal seem to be false.

By Aya (Aya) (203.120.44.8) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 03:05 am:

PENIL!!! Looks like you've beaten me to it.

I got caught up with other things elsewhere over the past few months, was recently alerted by a couple of other lurkers about this thread - and I come back to find my echo bouncing off the walls. I have a sudden urge to look for pins to drop around.

Since you've posted something, I guess I needn't ask if this thing is on and working right.

But sometimes silence speaks volumes about stuff.

Aya

By Timothy Andrew Ross (Ghosthunter) (24.71.223.140) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 04:41 pm:

Even though the real fighting is over in Iraq, I want to apologize for the actions of my Prime Minister Jean Chretien. He has really lost it since he said that this was his final year, a whole legacy thing and all. I am an Albertan and have felt much disgust over him flopping on sending Canadian troops to Iraq. When I heard this I was in disbelief, you guys, our southern neighbours would help us in a heartbeat. When Alberta Premier Ralph Klien said that he was supporting the Americans it made me go out and find a pin with both the Canadian and American flag, I still wear it. Chretien has done many dumb things and I wish we Canadians could fix it. Sorry again and hopefully all Americans that are still there make it back okay.

Timothy Ross
Calgary Alberta, Canada.

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 02:59 pm:

Irene,
don't know if you will read this, but I left this thread a long time ago, but a few recent events made me think about it.
several topics: open and frank discussions- you probably don't have access to our talk radio - now it is true it leans to the conservative side, but that is just the nature of the audience - many sides of this issue are discussed, much like this thread - some on each side are intelligent, while others are just spouting propaganda(from both sides). You should hear what politicians are saying now about Bush! You use the Dixie Chicks and Sarandon situations as evidence that free speech is being quashed - it is just the opposite - they were not "banned" by the government(which would be illegal, and I would personally stand side by side with Susan Sarandon and support her if that happened) Stations and movie theatres made a decision, which is their right, not to promote their music and movies. Robbins compared it to McCarthyism - but the difference was the the McCarthy hearings were a GOVERNMENT action - these instances were the free market and the first ammendment at work. Free speech is alive and well
Isolation - the European countries that supported this action include, but are not limited to: UK, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia...http://geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html
As you can see from the map - I think it is France, Belguim and Germany that are in the minority and have risked isolation
Weapons - yes we gave Iraq weapons to fight against Iran, which had attacked our embassy and imprisoned Americans - we did not know of the full extent of Saddam's brutality at the time, or we chose to side with the lesser of two evils. It was a mistake that we made. France may have been giving weapons to Iraq at a time when they were under UN sanctions- I don't believe they were under sanctions when the US provided weapons.
WMD - they will be found - remember the Iraqi officers on the tape that Powell played - they were supposed to EVACUATE the WMD - they were there, the UN found them, and now they are either hidden, removed from the country, or were hastily destroyed or a combination of all of these. My sources tell me they have found evidence, although not a lot - but they are keeping it under wraps until they can put together the whole picture and get to more of it - they will be found

Keep the Iraqis and all the military over there in your thoughts and prayers. It is still a dangerous situation - let us hope that the Iraqi people can take over as quickly as possible and we can celebrate a free Iraq.

By Trevor Stanley (202.182.74.92) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 08:39 pm:

I just came across this interesting message board following the backlinks from the previous post (I created the Coalition of the willing page Michael Tatu refered to.)

I just read most of the thread and thought I'd make a couple of comments about Iraq's weapons.

Those who were in Iraq during their big arms buildup in the late 1980s say there were arms of all sorts of origins - they were buying from anyone and everyone at that time. This was before Saddam really cracked down and adopted a domestic policy modelled on the Soviet Union.

However, the main suppliers of Iraqi arms were:
Tanks: Russian T-54/55/62/72/59/69 models. (Source: SBS World Guide 5th Edition.)
Small arms: Russian kalashnikovs
Planes: France
Incidentally, in the 1991 Gulf War, the French were able to somewhat disable the planes because they knew how to jam the electronics (a built-in flaw). They could still fly, but some of the systems (radar?) did not work.
In the 2003 Gulf War, the airstrips were captured by the Australian SAS before the war even started, thus saving the lives of many Iraqi pilots!

Many have talked about America supplying biological weapons to Iraq. In fact, Iraq requested a type sample from a laboratory in America, and the laboratory responded, sending a couple of small samples (normal practice at the time). However, Ken Alibek, the former head scientist in the USSR's 'Biopreparat' (biowar programme), who defected to America, said that the Russians supplied all the ingredients, the fermenting vats etc, to Iraq. In fact, Iraq admitted they had a lot of this stuff back in the 90s. Their 12,000 page dosier after UNSC resolution 1441 repeated all those admissions, stated that they no longer had the WMD, but did not provide any evidence whatsoever.

So where are the WMD now? Does the fact that we have not found them mean they never existed? Would a UN committee being chaperoned by the Mukhabarat (Iraqi secret police) have found the weapons when the Baath party controlled Iraq, given that the coalition team can't find them now?

As Australian Senator Eric Abetts recently pointed out in Parliament, those who say "We can't find WMD therefore they never existed" may just as well say "We can't find Saddam Hussein therefore he never existed." Yes, it is a very big country, and many people were involved in the WMD programme. Those people all have an interest in hiding those weapons, and a much better knowledge of the hiding places than we have.

Trevor Stanley

By Michael Tatu (207.130.70.71) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 05:42 pm:

The WMD will be found soon - or at least the evidence of what happened to them will be found - especially now that Saddam's sons have been found and dealt with. Saddam will not be far behind and will be found.
The world is a better place today

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (213.122.234.209) on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 07:30 pm:

Apart from the elimination of Uday and Ebay, there's very little to shout about at this stage.
I also fail to logically marry the idea that WMD will be found soon thanks to these two people being killed?

The fact of the matter is that the initial propaganda that Saddam had to be removed due to the "imminent" threat of his WMD has not yet borne fruit. Rather, the British government is in turmoil because of it and Coalition (mainly U.S?) troops are being killed or injured nearly every day because of it.

The world press has also noted that President Bush has replaced the terminology of WMD to the likes of "illegal weapons" in two domestic speeches he has delivered very recently. We all know that his speeches are carefully crafted and delivered. Does he and his advisors know something that the rest of us don't?

History has yet to cast judgement on this whole issue and that will only happen when the WMD are found (or not), if the Iraqi nation will settle into being a harmonious state (or not) and just how many more casualties the people and governments the Coalition forces represent are willing to accept (or not).

Hopefully the world will be a better place, oneday

Jonathan.

By Marcos (200.196.116.60) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 03:36 am:

The world is a better place today?
You are so certain of your words.
The weapons will be found(i have been hearing this one for a looong time).
Osama will be found. (what can i say about this one?)
Saddam will be found.
Just waiting!
Go keepers of the truth and save the world from the barbarian and terrorists! All nations in the world urge you to do so.

The truth is coming out allright.
The world is not stupid!

If the U.S were absolutely sure that there were weapons how can the U.S not know where they are?
If they know they existed, if they had REAL PROVES that they existed, it should not be such a great mistery where they are now.
Where is the great american techonology that was used to find proves that these weapons existed?

The americans have probably just bought it another lie from their governement.

Just waiting for the weapons to be found...
Just waiting...
I am not a communist
I am not a Saddam Lover.
I just like to question things...

By M. Williams (Marine) (205.188.208.106) on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 10:01 am:

a weapon is only as dangerous as the person who uses it. saddam needed to go, he was a cruel, intollerable man. regardless of the weapons. regardless of the oil. regardless of all else beyone civility, the man needed to be removed.

noone seems to realize it was these type of weapons used on the kurds after the 1st gulf war. saddam had these weapons, there is no doubt, he was to arms happy not to have had them. he has had 12 years to hide them, or destroy them, so it isnt a suprise we havent found them yet.

and besides if he didnt have them, why would he have treated the weapons inspectors so? why wouldnt he have opened up iraq completely to prove america wrong? think about this....if saddam would have just proved he had no weapons, he would most likely still be in power....why would he have given that up? why would he not have complied?

in any event, his sons are dead, his country no longer controled by him, all because he wouldnt comply.

as i stated a weapon is only as dangerous as he whom controls it, saddam was the deadliest weapon in iraqs arsenal....he is ousted...he is no longer a threat...as soon as the iraqi people realize he will never be back, things will settle down in iraq, the people feared him greatly....

By susan roe (Frenchroe) (209.178.161.162) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 05:01 pm:

Hi Everyone:

I began reading this website in the hopes of learning more about my distant cousin (Medic Eugene Roe). I've found so much more....

Aya: The Japanese exploitation of your people, the Koreans and Chinese is inexcusable. Moreover, the Japanese government's refusal to render an official apology for the "comfort women" (native women who were used as sex toys by the Japanses soldiers") is UNACCEPTABLE.

Philipinepearl: Your filipino soldiers were of great assistance to the US soldiers. They deserve the full benefits promised to them by the US government at the time of war. But, the US presence in the Philipines as not altruistic...it was military strategy. We needed a stronghold in the south pacific.

Also, I understand your dislike of the "radical" Muslim. Your country has had it's share of problems with the Moros...but to me, "radicals" of any religion are intolerable. Remember that Christianity has also had it's share of ruthlessness: the crusades, the Inquisition (and slaughtering of Jews), the forced conversion of Native Americans, etc. So, Christianity is just as capable of cruelty and warfare as it's Muslim brothers.

It is rather sad that the two great religions cannot get along. Or for that matter that they can't get along with Judeism. They all believe in the 5 first books of the bible; they all come from the Abrahamic/Ibrahimic family. They all preach peace, brotherly love and salvation. The Catholics observe lent and sacrifice for 40 days before Easter. The Jews have their one day of atonement. And the Muslims fast during the Holy Month of Ramadan, to remember the plight of the poor and needy. With all that going for them, YOU'D THINK THEY'D GET ALONG!!!

I don't see the point of this continued war in Iraq. There are no weapons of mass destruction. And what is this Operation Iraqi Freedom? What right do we have to determine another people's political system? I don't want someone interfering with my American govt. So, I don't think we have a right to dictate another's.

This war in Iraq is not like the war my cousin Medic Roe fought in. WWII, we knew the enemy: it was Hitler and the Axis powers. Hitler killed OTHER PEOPLE, not just German Jews. Who's the enemy now? All the Arabs? No, that's clearly not true. But where do you define the line? And is this war in Iraq just an excuse to get rid of Saddam. What right do we have to dictate their leadership. The Iraqi people want their country back. Let them have it. We don't need another Vietnam. The Vietnamese were fighting for their freedom, first from the French and then from us. We naively thought we were fighting against communism. And so we lost, dearly.

My dad, who fought in Vietnam, cannot fathom why other people hate Americans. He's never travelled the world as I have. All lot of people hate Americans because they think we are arrogant in our control of other countries. They think we are imperialistic. They could be right.

and there is something else to keep in mind. Until 9/11, our mainland had never been attacked. Europe is landlocked and its peoples have a history of wars dating back centuries. The two World Wars really destroyed Europe and its peoples. I believe it is because of their history, the Europeans fear new warfare. And the French have everything to fear about a Arab war. Have you been to France lately? It has millions of North Africans (Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians) and they are Muslims. It is an uneasy time for the French.

Thank you for your patience.