By Philippines (Pacificpearl) (192.169.39.71) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 04:42 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 - 12:04 pm:

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 - 01:04 pm:

Nice story Aya. We are all brothers.

By Sue Wright (Swright) (163.179.171.135) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 04:35 pm:

By Jonathan Jones (Jonjones) (81.131.145.148) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 06:26 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 - 10:38 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 - 11:21 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 - 11:47 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 - 03:05 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 - 04:55 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 - 05:19 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 - 07:36 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 - 02:12 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 - 05:51 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 - 02:13 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 - 12:48 pm:

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 - 09:48 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 - 04:18 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 - 08:08 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 - 02:25 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 - 08:03 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 - 11:15 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 - 11:42 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 Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 12:21 am:

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 Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 12:29 am:

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 Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 12:31 am:

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 - 03:27 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 - 04:04 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 - 11:08 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 - 11:28 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 - 03:15 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 - 06:32 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 - 07:36 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 - 03:33 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 - 04:32 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 - 07:05 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 - 09:34 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 - 10:10 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 - 12:36 pm:

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 - 03:20 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 - 03:36 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 - 04:20 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 - 04:24 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 - 05:20 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 - 12:32 pm:

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 - 12:51 pm:

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 - 12:52 pm:

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 need his blessings.

gary 11/3

By Tom Engquist (Tome) (192.28.2.17) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 07:47 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 - 04:18 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 - 05:10 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 - 03:04 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 - 03:11 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 - 03:46 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.