'tis an ugly mess. Butt ugly, at that.

But let's be frank, ladies...if one does something right for the wrong reasons...it is still wrong.

If this was just about the oil, okay. If it were just about Hussein, or Al-Queda, or Bin Laden, okay. If this, If that. As Phyliss would say, "Yadda, Yadda, Yadda." Too much talk, and we have a sword hanging over us. Not enough talk...and we get viewed as rushing in where fools fear to tread. BAH!

Meantime, the clock keeps ticking away. Tick, Tock.

I hate to say this, but I am far more concerned about North Korea than I am about Iraq. I understand the Asian culture better than the Middle East...North Korea lost face 50 years ago, and they have been waiting very patiently to regain their honor. And, they have the tools to do it with...moreso than Iraq.

I would not want to be in any sort of political office right now, in any part of the world. Too many talking heads posturing for the cameras, not enough discussion of any real substance. We do far better here on TrannyWeb.  

And the scariest part of all...what happens if we actually win the fight? Did we win the war? Will anybody really care? Will we be tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity? Will there even be any humanity left? Ponder that, Pinky.

At this point, either start the d@mn thing or quit threatening me with it. In short--get it on or get over it. I'm tired of the threats and posturing.

Jayne Sakura

Stevie,

You wrote:
I think we really have to be aware that other countries are watching how we (all nations who claim to be civilized and want peace) handle the brats of the world.

I do hope that you are not under the illusion that the other Far Eastern Countries will be impressed when we bomb the shit out of Iraq!

You also wrote:
when other nations violate treaties/agreements, ignore the terms of cease fires, attack us directly, attack our allies, etc., we do have a responsibility to act

I agree totally.  Unfortunately, my definition of act is not limited to the word 'destroy.'

Let's all just hope that what appears to be an almost inevitable war with Iraq doesn't go pear shaped.  I can't help feel that George Bush is just trying to complete what his old daddy failed to do and that he couldn't give a stuff about the repercussions.

I don't intend to write any more on this subject.  We all have our own views which are often based on propoganda and deception.  The truth is always hard to come by!

I've visited the war graves in Normandy and the site of the Twin Towers in New York.......so many young people dead  before they have had a chance to live!  WAR is not a solution!

Still friends

Lisa

I am increasingly convinced that whatever we do about Iraq, it will be wrong.  The situation has become so difficult that there is no good way to resolve it.  If we go to war immediately, we will kill innocent people.  If we do not go to war, but continue to contain Iraq with sanctions and inspections, the people there will continue to suffer.  If we admit defeat and remove the sanctions, Saddam Hussein will rebuild his arsenal and threaten his own people and his neighbors again.  If we continue to negotiate, we will get nowhere, and we will likely just continue the containment option until Saddam Hussein dies of natural causes, and we all know that evil dictators live to a ripe old age if they get the chance.  Whatever decision is ultimately made, harm will be done to innocent people.  There is no way out.  We, and many innocent people, must now pay for the mistakes of the past.

Heather H.

Control is economic now - not thougth occupation and right now OPEC is the pain for the US - Iraqi OIl in the hands of a pliable government would be a signficant advantage to the US oil industry - there were considerable oil benefits in taking cintrol of Afghanistan - what alarms m is just how little money is being spent by the US in rebuildig the country - and certainly a lot less has been spent in the last year since the war than was spent in knocking it down - and now of course the countrty is returning to tribal conflict and opium production.

2000 years ago a great leader and king was born in Israel - he taught peace at a time when the country was in the hands of an oppressive superpower who controlled by  providing financial incentives to collabrators - it a systme stil used today by all empire builders - Britain and America included - and when their authority is threatened and the stability created by their network of collaborators they use maximum force to resolve the issues.

Terrorism is the name oppressors use to describe what he oppressed call freedom fighters - The Germans considered the french resistance to be terrorists - Many of the people of Israel wanted the Jews to rise up and overthrow the Romans, Jesus, as the legitimate King of the Jews they expected to lead the revolution - he refused teaching instead a peaceful means of co-existance - The Jews  could not come to terms with it them so they managed to persuade the Romans to crucify him instead  - but of course he was right - 70 years later when they did rise up the Romans slaughtered them all and destroyed their cities.

War does not work - Peace will always win in the end - I dislike most organised religeon because it so often corrupts the teachings and turns them to support violence.  It is a great shame right now that the so called Christians who are behind this war do not pause to read the teachings of their spiritual leader - and give peace a chance.

Hi Stevie,

As I've told you before, I think that you speak a lot of sense, but I must disagree with you on the Iraq issue.

In the UK, we've lived with IRA terrorism for many years.  I don't want to lose any friends here, but they were funded by many Americans who at the end of the day helped them to blow up innocent people.  My point is though, that the continual fighting in Northern Ireland wasn't stopped by arms, it was stopped by discussion, mediation and agreement.

Don't you think it better to disarm by peaceful means than to use up weapons on innocent people?

I love America and the American people, but there a lot of countries in the Far East who are convinced that America has taken it upon itself to police the world, control the important assets like oil and persecute the Islamic nation.  You and I may not believe this to be true, but try looking at it from their perspective and it isn't difficult to see why they are angry and afraid.  

It makes me feel very uneasy when the west tries to dictate policy to the rest of the world eg nuclear policy to the likes of North Korea.  At some point, this sort of approach is going to result in World War.

When you say that there will always be somebody out there who hates the west, then imagine you are a peace loving, non political person living in Iraq.  Someone comes along and wipes out your family with a cruise missile.  Do you think that you would remain a non political animal, or would you want revenge.  Every time a terrorist or an innocent civilian is killed, it becomes a cause for others to take their place.

I want to get rid of Sadaam and his regime as much as the next transgendered person.  The difference is that I and many others would prefer to do it in a way that innocent people didn't get killed and that he wasn't seen as a martyr.

I'm sure that there are those of you who agree with what I have said and also those who disagree.  The good thing is that we are discussing the issues openly and not shooting each other!

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, particularly on the IRA issue, but it's different when you are on the receiving end!

Hugs

Lisa


Why don't we simply try him for war crimes against his own people?

Hi girls

I usually agree with you Americans, but in this war game I´m not with you...

hugs

Laura

I'm not normally one for getting tied up in political issues, but have some questions that I would like someone to answer.

1.  When the west went to war with Afghanistan, massive resources were deployed in order to kill or capture Bin Laden.  We blew the top off whole mountains in order to purge the world of his presence but he remains alive and active.  Why then should going into Iraq achieve the downfall of Sadaam Hussein?  What will stop him from making a discreet exit from the country once he feels that his life is threatened?

2.  We do not want to see weapons of mass destruction used on our people or on Iraqi's themselves.  When Sadaam is facing final defeat and has nothing to lose, isn't it the obvious time for him to put those weapons into use?

3.  Has anyone in the west the right to dictate to other countries what weapons they should have or what their nuclear policy should be?  Isn't it a little hypocritical to say that we have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons but others must not.  What makes us so smart?

4.  Why don't Bush and Blair realise that wielding the might of western power is simply going to unite Muslim countries in their hatred of the west?

5.  If after answering these questions, you feel that we should go to war, then ask yourself one question.  Do I feel so strongly about this that I would be willing to see my partner, son or daughter die for it?

Remember that invading Iraq may well get rid of Sadaam, but his allies will become stronger in their unity!  Peace can only be achieved by talking and understanding.  There will always be sad people out there who can only satisfy their need for power and control by creating havoc.  We should not punish whole nations because of them.  

Ladies:

It looks like the clock stops ticking at 7 PM. CST, 3/19/03. So much for the voices of reason.

I have said as much before: "Let us remember one thing: War--in any form, under any rules, or lack thereof--is an evil thing, and as such is never to be taken lightly."

Mr. Hussein is in violation of several UN resolutions (678, 687, and 1441 to name a few). Diplomacy over a 12 year span has produced...nothing. The "coalition" has given him 48 hours, in which to step down and go into exile. He has said that he won't.

I am not for war in any sense. I am, however, in support our troops, if not always the Commander in Chief. It is my hope and prayer that this thing is finished quickly. We will bring home our dead and bury them, praise our heroes, and treat these men and women with the respect they will deserve.

Then, maybe this time, everyone will learn their lessons, and we won't have to go through this any more.

Jayne Sakura

According to early news reports, the war has started.

My good wishes go out to the American and British troops and to the Iraqi people. I hope this will be quick and I hope casualties will be few in number.

We must not lose interest after the war is over. Whatever we can do to rebuild the country afterwards must be done.

Heather H.

The Iraq saga continues, and things just seem to keep getting worse.

My latest thoughts on the subject are posted on my new personal website:

http://gendersociety.com/membersites/personal/heatherh/

Since I love to discuss politics, I decided to use my personal website as a place for me to rant and rave. I will post a notification whenever I put anything new there, in case anyone cares. At present, I do not have a way to post responses there; this political forum is probably the best place anyway.

Heather H.

It looks like war is inevitable, and I am very uncomfortable with going ahead right now, since the UN does not approve and world opinion is strongly against it.

However, now that it is starting, we must do it right. While I do not support the policy and I do not respect George W. Bush, I strongly support the troops. They must get all the resources they need to do this right. Afterwards, we have an opportunity to rebuild our image; we must put a lot of resources into rebuilding Iraq and we must treat the people there well; we need to prove to them that we are their friends. If we do this wrong, we will pay dearly in the future.

I have posted a new essay on my website on this subject.

Heather H.

P.S. This board has become uncharacteristically inactive lately; surely our political opinions haven't gone away! Let's start arguing again!

Let`s all hope it doesn`t turn into world war 3!

It could turn into World War III if we are not careful. A lot of people around the world hate us right now, and if we mess this up, we may find that numerous countries are willing to join together and fight us. Just imagine a totally united, radicalized Islamic world ready to band together to attack the United States. Our technology would likely prevail in the end, but millions would die on both sides. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Heather H.

Hi luvs--

I agree. We must help rebuild the country after we are done bombing everything. Something about "picking up our mess and putting things away" comes to mind....

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Last night more bombs and missiles were dropped on Iraq than during the entire Gulf War - and all we want to talk about on the news is that a couple of US marines were killed and eight British troups were killed when an American helicopter crashed and they had to wait til they could bring in British helicopters to replace the unreliable American ones.

All night long non stop war reporting - but its all a big game - I have had to stop watching television because I cannot stand it.

And why is there so little resistance - well the US and UK governments have pulled the greatest con in history - they got the UN to go into Iraq and make sure that there were no weapons of mass destruction and pinpoint any weapons they did have. No wonder the Iraqi government were reluctant to provide full support to the inspector - they could see this coming. This war is proving that Iraq had disarmed - they have nothing left to fight with but their hatred of the West.

And now the big dilema - Turkey and Iran are sitting on the boarders ready to send in hundreds of thousands of troups - They hate the Kurds as much as the Iraqi's and they are going to prevent any suggestion of a Kurdish State (Oh I seem to recall that a few years back Churchill was not very nice to the Kurds either.)

So what will America do if the Turks invade and secure Northern Iraq - Attack the Turks - a NATO member - and the Iranians are dying to get their own back on Iraq for the millions killed with British and American weapons when we thought Sadham was the good guy.

And when we have occupied the country and destroyed thier buildings with billions of dollars of munitions - the greatest cheek if all - we are going to take thier money and use it to rebuild the country giving all the contracts for the work only to western companies - That is theft. And I wonder who will be alowwed to be in charge - I'm sure the west are not going to allow free democratic processes to apply - they will somehow prevent unsuitable leaders from gaiing control for a while at least - they are alreay reluctant to allow the prospective leaders to have any involvement in the war itself.

Even when the war is over the problems will only just have begun - and I suspect that the next thig I will hear are Charities asking me to pay them money to help the Iraqi people and more of my Tax being diverted away from the real problems here to pay for everything - Blair was in Europe last week trying to persuade the countries who opposed the war to stump up some of the money for the rebuilding.

This whole thing is making me so angry that despite my opposition to violence if someone told me that terrorists had killed Bush and Blair - I would rejoice in the news because they deserve it.

Yes, we can discuss this issue only so much before we start repeating ourselves.

I will add this, though... I think this issue is more about war in general than Iraq. If any country needed a dictator removed, it's Iraq. The real question is about the conditions under which the good guys should start using force against the bad guys.

For those who think war is always the way to solve disputes, I doubt that I'll be able to reason with you. For those who think there is never a justification for war, I think you're being unrealistic, even though your hearts are in the right place.

Having ruled out the "never" and "always" options as being impractical, it really comes down to one of two things. Should we adopt a set criteria that we always apply to any given situation, or should we adopt no criteria and analyze each scenario on a case by case basis as it happens? If we do come up with a set of criteria for justifying war, do we stick to it religiously, or design in some wiggle room?

I can only hope that when we commit the final act of aggression against Iraq for the violation of treaties,it does not escalate beyond the boundaries of Iraq.Despite Saddam Hussein's international unpopularity,other countries with an axe to grind may decide to get in first,before the US decides it does not like their regime or leader either.
Speculation by experts suggest mid March as the probable date for the invasion.It is too soon.As yet,there is no support from the UN,and Dr Blix has not completed his work.Nothing to support the alledged possession of WMD has been found.There may well be some,I don't know.But to ask someone to prove something doesn't exist is a trifle unfair.You can only look,which over the whole of a country takes time.Then,and only then,can you say yes there is,or no,I couldn't find anything.
If it is the latter,no matter how much you may dislike what is going on within a country,or disagree with it's leaders and their policies,you cannot simply declare war and invade.This appies doubly if you do so unilaterally.
I have no simple solution.There are people more experienced and better qualified than me to work things out.
I do think more time and thought is needed before we do anything phsyical.I agree with Heather that whatever we eventually decide to do will be wrong.For Iraq,for any UN alliance and probably for the rest of the world.If there is one left.

Sue.X

Rikki, you and I agree on quite a bit about organized religion. Unfortunately, philosophies based on peace and love often tend to get lost in the institutions of the religious organizations, and tolerance of others is one of the first things to go.

However, I disagree about war in general. I have the same attitude toward war as I do about self-defense. I don't want to have to kill anyone, but if I'm attacked on the street or in my own home, I'll do whatever I deem necessary to protect myself. I can't force others to stop being violent if they don't want to. Likewise, we can't force certain dictatorships to respect stability and peace just because we want it. We've given Iraq over a decade, and peace with Saddam has failed. Anything other than war is a victory for Saddam Hussein. He's given us no indications that he's willing to bow out gracefully. Sometimes, fighting is the only alternative to losing. If we lose what little stability we have in the Mid East, the future looks very dangerous for everyone.

I don't think we'll convince each other of anything, though. We have entirely different perspectives on this issue. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

Oh, regarding the control of oil (and the world), the USA could've easily taken all of Iraq's oil at the end of the Gulf War, but that didn't happen. Our track record shows that we don't conquer and gobble up territory after we fight wars (well, aside from our own continent). If we do anything, we try to fill the void with a better government for the people who survive. Also, we don't go around getting rid of governments we don't like unless they have proven they are dangerous to us. If that were the case, we would've annexed France years ago (no offense to the French trannies out there, but the French government is often a pain).  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

No offense taken. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

My ancestry is Irish, but I've never been to Ireland, and I'm ignorant about the IRA situation for the most part. I know only what I've heard on brief news reports over the years. However, I will say that all forms of terrorism are acts of cowardice.

You say the fighting in Northern Ireland was stopped by discussion, mediation, and agreement. Does that mean I can throw temper tantrums when I don't get my way, and commit acts of terrorism until someone talks to me and offers me a compromise so I'll stop my rampage? I'm just saying that I don't think we should reward violence with kindness.

I don't think it's as simple as there being a difference between the "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye" mentalities. I think we really have to be aware that other countries are watching how we (all nations who claim to be civilized and want peace) handle the brats of the world, and when we let one or two run wild, the others will see that there are no consequences for bad behavior. That encourages more violence, and that's why I can't condone negotiating with terrorists or nations bent on conquest.

We (USA & UK) shouldn't dictate policy to the rest of the world, nor should we appoint ourselves the world's police force. However, when other nations violate treaties/agreements, ignore the terms of cease fires, attack us directly, attack our allies, etc., we do have a responsibility to act, and so does every other nation that claims to be civilized. Civilized nations can't afford to consider uncivilized nations their equals, even though it seems like the nice thing to do. Of course, there are always civilized people in those uncivilized nations, but until they rise up against their dictators, they will suffer them same fate as those who lead their countries.

Lisa, you asked about a peace-loving Iraqi who loses his family in a US/Iraq war. Is that the fault of our government or Iraq's government? When we torched Japan, should the Japanese people have blamed us or their own government for starting the war? Should the German citizens have blamed US and British bombers for lighting up their cities, or Adolf Hitler for bringing the world's fury down on Germany. If I were that hypothetical Iraqi citizen (and very soon, it could be a real scenario), I would want Saddam's head on a stick, not Bush's or Blair's.

1. I think there's a misconception that our primary objective was to get bin Laden himself. Our main goal was to break up the base of his terrorist network, and we have accomplished quite a bit. The Taliban no longer run Afghanistan, and the country is no longer a safe heaven for Al Qaeda . Regarding Saddam, the goal is to remove him from his position in Iraq and destroy his regime. It would be great to get bin Laden and Hussein, but victory doesn't depend on getting either of them (and we're still hunting bin Laden). After all, we didn't get Hitler in WW2, but that doesn't mean we lost.

2. He's already used those weapons on his people on past occasions. If he does it again, we should make sure it's the last time.

3. Yes. We won the Gulf War, therefore we dictated the terms to Iraq. That's what differentiates Iraq from other nuclear powers. We're not on the verge of invading India or Russia just because they have nuclear weapons.

4. That's an assumption. Besides, you can't always worry about that. There will always be extremists who hate the West, no matter what we do.

5. If you could've fought, or sent your loved ones to fight, against the Nazis prior to the Holocaust, would it have been worth it, if you thought you could succeed in preventing what happened? Also, there's a difference in sending people to fight and sending them to die. Our soldiers don't sacrifice their lives, they risk their lives. If soldiers of the past hadn't risked their lives, we wouldn't be enjoying our loved ones now.

6. "Peace can only be achieved by talking and understanding." If that were true, this would be a much nicer world, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, not all people think as we do, and they consider democracy to be a weakness of the West. While you talk and try to understand, they look you in the eye and smile, telling you what you want to hear while preparing to attack. We can't afford to apply our values to the would-be Napoleons of the world. They simply don't think as we do. If we refuse to roll up our sleeves and do the dirty work now, we might not be able to in the future, when the tyrants become too strong. I know I refer to WW2 a lot, but the world came very close to losing everything to the hatred of one man, and we should never let that happen again.

Pretty well what I've been saying all along.

Sue.

The silence on the board simply mirrors the sound of support for war.I have heard only two voices in favour. Unfortunately for all concerned, they are in charge.There is now just over an hour until George junior gives his speech,and we can all take a good guess from the last few days proceedings what he will say.I will be watching,but don't hold out much hope of him listening to world opinion.

I just hope it is over quickly.

I'm glad it will not be on my conscience.

And may your god go with you.

Sue.