It may be mincing words but I am NOT “anti-war”. I supported the gulf war and supported the war in Afghanistan. I did NOT support the recent war in Iraq.

Isn’t there any point at which you can admit that maybe, just maybe we were wrong. They HAVEN’T been found!

Even assuming your statement is accurate, doesn’t that only suggest that the war was a HUGE error and only allowed the weapons be moved out of the country into the hands of terrorists (I don’t really believe that happened but following your logic we just made one of the biggest mistakes conceivable).

Not quite. There IS evidence of destruction of huge amounts of weapons because we were the ones that destroyed them (UN inspections + aerial bombings). And evidence now suggest that we may have indeed destroyed all, or just about all of them. And that the Iraqis may have indeed destroyed them as well (not because they were good guys but out of fear of war).

That’s an interesting way to term the death of 10’s of thousands of people.

But if the only thing that you need to bomb an area is that some terrorists were there and got some training. Then they should go to war with Florida, since that is where a lot of those pilots got their training.


we live in a global world, I have family and friends in many countries. I have family and friends in the US. I have family and friends in New York, so you can bet I was watching to see what happened. My boss was down in that corner of New York for a meeting, his daughter works on he same floor as me in a different department, we were all very worried until we got a call that they (there were two of them) were OK, had rented a car and were on their way back. And that is not to mention all the family and friends I checked up on once I got home. So Shoe, if you think people leaving in the US are the only ones that can have an emotional connection to 9/11 then wake up and smell the coffee.

I am not anti-war, nor anti-Bush. I think in this case it was a wrong decision. There was an agenda, that is obvious, or else he US would not have been pushing so hard the UN to get into this war and would not have decided to go ahead with it even without UN approval, but I will be honest, I don't know what it was. Was it to get a hold of Iraqi oil, honestly I don't think it was a major reason (probably in the bonus category). Was it because Iraq was a threat(WMDs)? No, the UN forces and inspectors were there, there was not much Iraq could do. Was it because of terrorists? Again I don't think so, since there was not even an inkling of proof of that. I do find it suspicious that the reasons changed on a daily basis (like, OK, this con is not working let's change the sales pitch). Now as to the actual reason, I don't know what it is, but if it was not given and it is and was hidden, then chances are that the real reason(s) would not have been popular in the US or the rest of the world.

As for Bush being honest, lol. everyone new he lied about the proof, until the war, he could hide behind "we know were everything is but cannot show the proof because then they can take action concerning what we show...." obviously at this time he cannot hide it any more, that to me is not honest.

Actually the opposite is true. What economic loss would there have been. All the countries that did join did so after Bush said you are either with us or against us, trying to bully support for the war. That is why a lot of the countries that did join were ones that wanted to buy US favour.

Anthony, thank you for your answer. I don't know what all of Pres. Bush's motives were either. I am not pro war nor am I anti war. I agree with Thon where he states that our actions have been efficicient and effective. Saddam rewardeded suicide bombers and terrorized his own population with kidnappings, torture and genocide. He continually tested our will by violating accords he signed after losing the Gulf War. He would not show proof of the destruction of WMDs when it could have averted a war he knew he would lose and left him in power. Can anyone prove that his stockpiles of gas, the gas he deployed against Iran and the Kurds, was destroyed? Are terrorist attacks against the United States mainland less likely. I for one believe so. France and Germany collectively had billions of dollars of outstanding loans invested in factories in Iraq and stood to lose them. Also waging war is costly and I believe France and Germany will always apply more weight to cost than to principles. The US has continually supported UN military operations based on humanitarian actions. The US also foots the bill for general UN operations to a greater extent than France and Germany combined by far. I believe if Germany and France were still under threat of Soviet aggression they would have been for us, not against us and honored their treaty obligations. It is interesting to see France in bed with Germany again. The more things change the more they remain the same I guess.

Maybe, just maybe, we were wrong. Your points are articulate and well taken. I am not a mindlss Bush zealot, but in spite of all the criticism I still don't think this is a "bad" war. It is not a "quagmire" like Viet Nam. The way I see it war with Iraq has the following benefits:

1. Removal of an extremely violent and dangerous dictator. True, other nations have much more dangerous nuclear capability, but none has been as agressive as Iraq in recent history.

2. Sends a clear and decisive message to the rest of the world that we are actually going back-up what we say and not let thousands die while Clinton and Arafat are trying to decide what they want for lunch. Korea and Libya have backed down considerably already.

3. Strategic contol in the middle east. Now that we are established there we can have a greater influence over what happens there. Is this the US's job? Perhaps not, and I could be wrong, but I think it is a good thing.

4. Maybe, just maybe, we may actually GET some oil benefit out of this.

Q, I am also happy to hear that you are not mindlessly anti-war and you realize there are times when it is justified and necessary for the continued well being of the planet. Also, by anti-war, I was specifically refering to Iraq.

Now for the other side, not going to war:

1. Many innocent lives would have been spared although, on the Iraqi side at least, you have to decide what your definition of "life" is.

2. The US would have saved millions of dollars.

Bottom line is that we will recover from both of those and I believe the world will be a much safer place in the long run. I could be wrong.


Now this I just plain hate. Don't get all high and mighty on me about people dying. By dropping bombs on Japan during WWII we killed thousands of people, but in the process saved millions of lives. Most Iraqi's didn't have much of a life under Sadam. Our house pets have better lives. The surviving Iraqi nationals will now have freedom and opportunity to have a REAL life.

One last thing, I still have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of what Bush's ulterior motives were and I'd also like to hear how you think the situation should have been handled. You've just been informed that planes have crashed into the World Trade Center............GO!

This message was edited by Thon on 03/13/04 11:23.

according to what? If it was terrorism, (the reason given for the war) then please explain Madrid yesterday?


If that is the case please explain the first gulf war and even Yugoslavia?


If you do a search, you will notice that the US is one of the biggest owers to the UN. Also the US does not pay what it ows for peace keeping.

Anthony, I did a search to find information on UN finances and found very little. If you could direct me to the source I would appreciate it. The only information I could find listed the United Staes pledging about 130 million dollars in 2004 for the UNHCR fund, Germany with 1.288 million eur. and France with a big goose egg.
If our actions against Afghanistan and Iraq didn't deter terrorism against the United States perhaps the deplorable terrorist atrocity that occured in Madrid would have been in the United States.
France and Germany at the time of our recent action against Iraq had billions invested in Iraq and stood to lose that with the possible destruction of the facilities built with those billions. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's government who knew if the new government would assume any obligations of the old regime. I don't know what their financial exposure was in the Gulf War nor is this about that war.
I was dissappointed when Bush dealt the nonsupporting nations back into the reconstruction business in Iraq but the general American populace did a good job by boycotting French tourism and wines.
If you give me some time I would be glad to make a report about France's lack of support and opposition the the US's interests so France's non participation only shows that France's participation or lack of it probably has nothing to do with justice or humanitarian concerns.

I was running a bit late (had to leave), and all the links I could find were a bit old (when the UN was threatening of kicking out the US because of what it owed), but did a bit more searching, this is relatively new (I guess a year old)

[Link: globalpolicy.org]



now that is just wrong, I guess your compassion ends at your borders. I thought the idea was to make the world a safer place, not just move attacks out of US borders. Look at all those evill countries that were not ready to back the war for such a noble cause.


I have no idea what you just said

Anthony, I think you'll have to agree that owing money and not paying it are two different things. I think you'll find the US contribution far out weighs the French and German contribution. I don't know if you are familiar with the cost of real estate and services in Manhattan but the cost of having the UN headquarters here probable exceeds the average UN member state donation.
You have to be kidding. Are you suggesting the US caused the Basque terrorist attack in Spain. My concern doesn't end at our borders but it is certainly my primary concern. If the US expended military force to support an ally, like Kuwait for example, I wouldn't like it but I would support it.
In the past during sensitive international hostage rescue missions France has denied the use of her airspace to the United States. France was concerned the terrorists would object. I am trying to illustrate the French concern with themselves and themselve only. I don't find France or Germany evil but certainly remiss in their NATO responsibilities.

I just read that al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the Spain attack and blamed the Spanish government for its stance of support for the US attack on Iraq as the reason it did it.
Basically al-Qaida sentenced 200 people to death for their government opposing their( al-Qaida) views. When countries like France and Germany back down, terrorist organizations like al-Quida realize that their terrorist tactics work and continue to use these tactics. The only defense is a show of strength and resolve or eventually the al-Qaida solution will be the destuction of the United States and the rest of the world living under their distorted flavor Islam. If this seems like an attitude of them or us it is. It is the only choice al-Quida is giving and as far as countries that accept their presence and give them support they are accesories to the crime as well. If that means other countries in the Middle east that allow support for these terrorists need to sanctioned so be it.
I am interested in seeing the results of the Spanish elections to see the outcome of Al-Qaidas actions on the Spanish people.
My solution to the terrorist problem is to hunt them down and prosecute them. What is yours Anthony?

is the info that behind (or one sided in the US)?

1) ETA (the Basque militant group)said they were not responsible

2) Al-Qa'ida said they did it

3) all evidence (how the attack was done) point to Al-Qa'ida (agreed on by the experts)

4) Al-Qa'ida said this is the first step building up to the big attack that is coming in the US


I will admit I don't know who pays the UNs real estate, but are you sure they are not paying it and it is the US

I don't know who erroneously blamed the ETA There is a never ending UN tab for lost taxes on the most valuable real estate in the United Staes, the cost of police protection, unpaid parking tickets, tax free embassies and consulates and so on.
If I believed Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia were responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States would it be OK to bomb them. If I followed the al-Qaida philosophy the answer would be yes.
So Anthony, let's get away from the who did what to who and when. Let's leave France etc. out of it. The United Staes faces an organization sworn to its destruction based on holy religious fanatic motives. They have already killed almost 3000 thousand Americans on our soil and others over seas. My solution is to hunt them down and saction their supporters. What is your solution that will work for the United States that will not result in more US deaths? Should we surrender? Just let me know.

Spain. I can't even begin to understand.

You can get what you want with intimidation and strong arming of a nation.

The popular vote helps too.

Al Qaeda is seeking to purify the world in line with its own interpretation of Islam. It just begins with he allies of those against their agenda.

Look the other way and you will be safe.

Does anyone know a good site where we can talk about remotes and stuff?

what is a remote?