Now that it has started, I support the war effort, but the politicians had better not make any further mistakes. I will be watching this closely.

I never opposed the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power. As I have mentioned in one or two other posts, I believe he should have been removed during the first Gulf War. Leaving a defeated enemy in power is never a good idea.

However, I opposed starting the war at this time primarily because of who is in charge. Bush's inept diplomacy has done a great deal of damage. A better leader could have made a more convincing case. Instead, it has been obvious for months that Bush was going to pursue this no matter what Iraq or the UN did. He only went to the UN as an afterthought, when advisors indicated that it would be better to get UN approval. If there had been better leadership, perhaps even France could have been convinced. Even if France still threatened a veto, it would have been easy to get a large majority on the Security Council to support it, and that would have given it enough moral authority for me to support it. The Security Council veto is a bad idea anyway and I don't support it. A war such as this needs the approval of the international community to be considered legitimate, and it does not have that at present, and the blame for this failure lies primarily with George W. Bush.

Again, now that it has started, we must see it through and we must stay there as long as necessary to reconstruct the country.

Heather H.

Denise wrote: Hi Bettyanne, Shame! you have know doubt what an evil man Saddem has been and is ! yet you would rather hide your head in the sand and say he is not harming me so I'm not prepared to help others ! Whatever the hypocrisy of world politicians, on all sides. Mr Bush and americans are not the bad guys, yes Irak had every chance to say and do something over 12 years ! People die every day its a fact, if in this conflict a few more die, then at least their deaths were not spent in vain, because thousands of others will have the chance to live in peace, without fear. The life freedom and prospects you enjoy, were bought at a high price by your countrymen in the past, would you deny others that right. And prefer that such people as Saddem should continue to kill, torture suppress any freedom of its people. Whatever ones politcal views and opinions of different personalities, occasionally they do something right and deserve support.

denisentv

Maybe you've been somewhere else or haven't been keeping up on current events but this illegal invasion is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the massive problems we have with george bush in the position he's in. Let's deal with this one first. Be reading what you said I get the impression that whenever we consider some world leader to be "bad or evil" then we should just do what we're doing now and invade them, bomb civilians and destroy their country. Am I right so far? OK, then who's next because there certainly are more "bad" guys out there. Maybe we should invade North Korea next? What do ya think? And as far as I can see, China has a far less than desirable gov't which commits atrocities and injustices by the score. Now won't that be fun? Just think, we can get them all. After all isn't that what you're saying? Or maybe we only like the easy ones and (now get this honey) the ones with OIL! Wake up sweetheart. bush and the idiots that surround him don't give a damn about helping the people of Iraq. They don't even care about helping the people in the United Sates. They care about two things only and that's control and money..

And that's just for starters. have you been checking to see how many of our constitutional rights they've been stepping all over. Hon, because of bush and his entourage you can be arrested, held indefinately and denied access to anyone including an attorney. All they have to do is say they suspect you of being a terrorist whether it's true or not. Now there's a real freedom fighter for you! The list goes on like religious right-wing fanatics being appointed to critcal positions. Oh by the way, these folks really don't like people like us an any way shape or form. I'm not even going to waste my breath on bush's joke of an ecconomic package.

To summarize I'll just say that to paint bush as some sort of freedom fighter would akin to saying hitler liberated Poland. bush is a bad guy. Frankly he's just about as bad as they come. If you still don't believe this then just give him a little more time. He's gonna prove it in a big way.

<huggs> Betty

I agree with you about Rumsfeld, look him up on google.com, He was the U.S. envoy that went to Iraq for the Reagan administration when they were supplying arms to Saddam for his war with Iran, He was in Baghdad when the Iraqui`s used poison gas on the Irani`s, but chose to remain silent at the time.
He was appointed by the Bush administration, so I guess George has to take some of the blame for that, he certainly seems to be a classic example of someone who engages his mouth before putting his brain into gear,
I fully support the troops of all countries over there, and hope they all return home safely, but I cannot support the people who sent them there, our generals in the U.S. are already arguing about what is going on, I am more inclined to believe the commander in the field than some guy who is sitting on his fat ass behind a desk in Washington.
As a point of interest you may want to check out arab news on the web, it gives the Arab view of the war, which is totally different from that of the coalition`s.
Also, don`t be too hard on the French people, their views are not necessarily the same as their government, I was born in Britain, and while I am no lover of the French, I have spent a little time, remember thgey were occupied in two world wars,(they are still finding unexploded shells from the first one), many of their citizens were tortured by the gestapo and sent to concentration camps in W.W.2. women and children were executed in reprisals for acts of resistance,like aiding allied aircrews that were shot down.
I spent a week in a small village there last year, and there were war graves in the local cemetery, the local people not only tended the graves, they maintained a roadside memorial to the aircrews, it saddens me that if this sort of thing was erected in the U.S. or England it would have probably have been vandalised.

Hi all

I´m so sad they started the war after all.... Let´s pray for all the innocent, who must suffer.


Laura

Laura--

It is a sad day, indeed. Pray not only for the inncocents, but also that this mess ends quickly with minimal loss of life all the way around.

Jayne Sakura

As an American I feel shame at what we are doing. There's no doubt what Saddam is. The sad question I keep asking myself is "Is George Bush any better?". At this point I don't think so. The fact is we invaded another country who made no direct threats at us other than what bush tried to fabricate. Bush wanted war from the beginning and all that talk about Iraq not disarming was a smokescreen. Just ask yourself if there was ANYTHING Iraq could have said or done to stop bush's war plans. I think we all know the answer.

I hate feeling that we're the bad guys and I really do in this case. I can't bring myself to watch or listen to anything at all about this abomination but I do know innocent people are dying as might some of our own troops. This is happening because of one individual with very questionable faculties. This person isn't Saddam.

Stevie--

Mark your calendar, dear. We agree on a topic!

Jayne Sakura

Bush and Blair may or may not be doing the right thing, only time will tell if they lied or not, but the Turks that are now planning to invade northern Iraq have only one reason for doing so.

Hi again Denise

I understand what you are saying and by no means do I think getting rid of Saddam is a bad thing. The biggest problem I have is the way it's being done.

To be specific the United Nations was created for just such reasons. I know there always will be conflicting interests between nations which influence the votes but realistically when there has been a just cause the votes have been there and what had to be done was done. In this case we have ignored the UN which is a bad precedent. This is highly unacceptable to me and makes clear we have crossed a boundary we should not have.

My question is, what was the hurry? The inspections were gaining more teeth even if it was because we were massing at the borders. If there was anything there it would have been found. Then you make the decision with the rest of the UN security council. The so-called proof Powell presented was a joke and didn't convince anyone. We have alienated most of our major allies and have proven we're a rogue nation with no regard for international law or consensus. This is unacceptable and a lousy way to present ourselves as a nation. After all if a friend needs an operation to save their life and we go out and kill someone to steal the money for it is this justified? On the one hand the friend gets the operation which is good. On the other hand we have taken someone elses life and stolen which isn't. The age old question "does the end justify the means?" comes into play. In the case of bush vs saddam my feeling is that we've lost more than we've gained as a nation and the phrase "one nation under God" no longer belongs in our pledge.

Just the way I see it.

btw, how do you get the picture next to your name?

<hugs>

Betty

Hi Denise:

First let me say that your post was very well thought out and really focus's on some of the practical situations that were in play.

I don't disagree with the facts and conclusions you present. What I will say that bush painted us in a corner by moving that large of a force in what to me seemed way to soon.

It seemed everyone was in agreement in the need for a second resolution even the U.S.. If not why then would we work on trying to convince everyone to vote with us.

It's very true the French have more to gain by saddam staying in power then the U.S. did. However, if the inspections had been allowed to proceed as most of the UN wanted I believe if there had been something there it would have been found.

You see hon, in my eyes war is a last (and I really mean the very last) resort. I wouldn't have done it this way at all. To me, we weren't anywhere near approaching a last resort scenario. People dying in this manner is unthinkable unless there really really is no other way. In this case there was another way even if it didn't seem credible to some. If there's a chance to not kill (any chance at all) then you don't kill.

Just the way I see it.

<hugs>

Betty

p.s. I think I got the icons, thanks.

The UN is a flawed institution, but it is all that we have at present. This diplomatic fiasco has hurt everyone involved, and it will take years to repair the damage. The UN needs to be reformed, but that is highly unlikely to happen because each permanent member of the Security Council will veto any attempts at change. Perhaps the UN will ultimately become irrelevant and collapse like the League of Nations did, and then a new organization can be built on its ashes.

The Security Council veto is an extremely bad idea. It effectively puts the five permanent members and their friends above the law, as they can veto anything that goes against their interests. The present makeup of the council is unfair. Large parts of the world do not have an effective say in what happens in the Security Council. I would be very happy to see the United States give up its veto if the other permanent members will as well.

Still, that would not have solved the Iraq problem. Bad diplomacy on all sides ruined the process. We desparately need better leadership; how many more bad presidents can the United States endure before the damage becomes irreversible?

Again, I hope this war ends quickly with casualties minimized on all sides.

Heather H.

Hi,
Thought I might add my 2 cents,

Now that war is on, I think time for debate on whether or not it is right is over. We should concentrate on the Service men and women, as it is they who do our Governments bidding (rightly or wrongly) and do it well and proudly!

You have brought some very good arguements, views held by by rational thinking, educated thoughts.

I believe that the UN system is something that everyone thinks is something of a good and noble idea. It is an institution that has a very important job with no way of doing it efectivly.

There are people who work there there whole careers based on international problems who are very good at their jobs, but are made to do what ever their country asks even when they know that it is not the best way to solve or indeed worse create more because of current government policy of their country.

What we need to do is hand over the UN to people who are the specialist in the field. The UN needs to have its own Professional Military, drawn from people from all aroung the world. Run by the UN in a way in which no one country has any more power than another. The moral right would be the strongest way to get things done. That way if a problem like Iraq comes up it can be looked at without biase, and delt with just the same.

Now funding would be an issue, well an army does cost money. It would have to be funded by member nations. Yes that is going to have to mean more money put in by some and not others, but done properly would mean that there would be a greater emphasise put on helping out poorer nations as as their wealth grows so does there funding.

Why have a UN Military force why not spend the money on feeding the starving? Um... what better way of making sure some scumbag warlord isn't taking the food away than with UN Soldier with the legal right to defend the starving? instead of restrictive rules of ingaugement due to political reasons.

Yeah, I know this sound like a lot of philosopicical hippy rubish. Well I don't think it is. We need to give up our egos. Yes my country is good, great be proud of your nation, just have the moral courage to say its the right thing to do, not its the right thing for me.

Sorry to go on like that, I always say that if you have a problem, give a way to resolve it. Thats just my idea.

Support the Troops! war is on now and they deserve our support. Being ex-service I know that they want to hear we support them, even if you don't support the war.

PTE fiona.

P.S. PTE means private

I am Very upset with Pressident Bush That he started this very very unpopular war, I was not around during the Veitnam erea but from what I have heard, and saw of the protests on TV from that Erea this is turnign out to be another Veitnam and lets pray for all the armed froces that have to fight this war and fro a quick end and for peace.
Dear Father in heaven all of us here pray to you almighty god and father tht this war in the middle east ends with no more blood shead, no more violence and that a quick end and everlasting peace may ensue in this world today, In your name we pray fore ever and ever Amen.!

I hope you are right, although it seems mistakes have already been made, allied missiles have strayed into Iran, Syrian workers were killed when their bus was crossing a bridge that was bombed, neither of these countries are friends of the United States, we certainly don`t need to get them involved in this war.
My greatest fear is that Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction hidden in Baghdad, and is just waiting for the allied forces to enter the city before using them,it seems strange that the Iraqui`s haven`t used them to slow down our troops.
I have no doubt that Saddam is capable of doing this, in the Arab culture, manhood is the most important thing there is, peaceful surrender is out of the question for him, obviously he can`t win this war, the only way he can save his manhood is to die while fighting a Jihad or Holy War against the infidels.
While there is a lot of support for the war at the moment, that could change if things go badly for the allies, to be fair to Bush, I think he is being manipulated by other people in his party, I certainly don`t trust Rumsfeld as I think he has his own agenda.

Ladies:

This was sent to me by a dear friend. I have sent it out a few times, but feel it needs to be posted here. I have a few comments on the bottom.
-----
TRYING TO HELP - by DENNIS MILLER

ALL THE RHETORIC ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ HAS GOT MY INSANE LITTLE BRAIN SPINNING LIKE A ROULETTE WHEEL. I ENJOY READING OPINIONS FROM BOTH SIDES BUT I HAVE DETECTED A HINT OF CONFUSION FROM SOME OF YOU.

AS I WAS READING THE PAPER RECENTLY, I WAS REMINDED OF THE BEST ADVICE SOMEONE EVER GAVE ME. HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE KISS METHOD (KEEP IT SIMPLE,
STUPID!) SO, WITH THIS AS A THEME, I'D LIKE TO APPLY THIS THEORY FOR THOSE WHO DON'T QUITE GET IT. MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN SIMPLIFY THINGS A BIT AND RECOGNIZE A FEW IMPORTANT FACTS.

HERE ARE 10 THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN VOICING AN OPINION ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE:

1) BETWEEN PRESIDENT BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ... HUSSEIN IS THE BAD GUY.

2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING, KEEP THIS IN MIND: THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE.

3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," YOUR REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?"

4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE
EDUCATION YOU DESERVE.

5) SADDAM AND BIN LADEN WILL NOT SEEK UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL BEFORE THEY TRY TO KILL US.

6) DESPITE COMMON BELIEF, MARTIN SHEEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE PLAYS ONE ON T.V.

7) EVEN IF YOU ARE ANTI-WAR, YOU ARE STILL AN "INFIDEL!" AND BIN LADEN WANTS YOU DEAD, TOO.

8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE.

9) WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIBERATE THEM.

10) WHETHER YOU ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION OR AGAINST IT, OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT RESERVATION.

I HOPE THIS HELPS.
-----
We can all argue whether or not the war is a good thing or a bad thing. However, the war is on, and while I want everything over and the troops brought home, I also want children to have peace.

Just based on what I have seen from several different news sources from around the world, we will not have that peace if we were not at war right now. I am not in favor of war--but I am in favor of peace, and in favor of the troops out there fighting right now. The reason we have a (mostly) free world is that free men and women fight for what they believe to be the right thing.

Jayne Sakura

Denise, honey--

**Laughing, VERY loudly...!**

Your comment (on French victories or lack thereof) is precious!

I hope we are all supporting the troops. I know a few folk here in town that are not...but they are becoming quieter and less in number as time goes by and as the current Iraqi government is being shown for what they are and what they have.

Luv 'n hugs,

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

Rumsfeld is looking worse and worse all the time. He has always had a superb talent for sticking his foot in his mouth in front of the press, and now it looks like the commanders in the field do not respect him - probably for good reasons. If he does great damage to the war effort in the future, I will not be surprised. Again, I am disappointed in our leadership.

Heather H.

Heather:

If I read you correctly, then what you are saying is that "A closed mouth gathers no foot."

Pity more elected bozos--excuse me, politicians--haven't figured this out yet.

Luv 'n hugs,

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

Bush is O.K. He's knows he's doing the right things for the right reasons, and most Americans support him. Blair doesn't quite have the same support at home, but he put his convictions ahead of politics and did what was right, as well. History will show that they are both men of honor.

Don't worry Bush, worry about Mrs. Clinton, because she plans to run for President. If you think you'll get arrested now, wait until you get arrested for trying to see a doctor of your choice. I, for one, certainly don't want a communist government deciding whether I should have access to hormones, but that's what her previous proposal would've required.

I'm not switching the focus away from Bush, I just wanted to offer some reality and perspective. Bush and Blair are correct. Saddam is a menace to the free world, not just his own people. He's shown his willingness to use whatever weapons he has at his disposal, and he'll only get stronger and bolder if left in power. Regardless as to whether he's already had direct contact with terrorist organizations based outside Iraq, we know him, and we know he'd love the chance to supply and support anyone who planned to inflict pain upon the USA, if he hasn't already. He demonstrated his aggression when he attacked Kuwait, and he's demonstrated his deception on numerous occasions. Just this week, he launched SCUD missiles at us that he claimed he no longer possessed. He didn't deserve one more hour (he didn't deserve the decade we gave him under Mr. Clinton), and it's a shame the UN couldn't act together. Unfortunately, it was not in some nations' (France, Russia, Germany) best financial interest to invade Iraq, so they tried to block us once things got serious.

My only complaint about the invasion of Iraq is that it didn't happen years ago. If we had shown the tyrants and terrorists that we meant business, perhaps 9/11/2001 would've been avoided. That's a big "what if," but after seeing what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq right now, terrorists will be shown that their methods do not work on us, they only serve to wake us, as Japan's attack did at Pearl Harbor. By the way, Japan deserves applause for supporting us now, and that country has been a stellar example of how a nation can be turned around once tyranny has been removed. Also, other tyrannical governments now know that it's unsafe to support terrorist groups who attack the USA, so it will be less likely that terrorist groups will receive funding or shelter from evil governments in the future.

Hopefully, the North Korean government will calm down, but if North Korea thinks it can attack us and survive as a nation, we'll be glad to correct its leaders.

You have a point, there.

Hey, wait a minute! There's no agreeing allowed in this forum!

Hi Girls

Just a couple of observations.

Somewhere in this post mention was made of the "unseemly military build up". There was a very practical reason for that, the Iraqi summer weather which would make fighting, or even living, in open desert conditions very difficult for westerners.

Given that our advance is not quite as quick as some might have expected and we are facing increasing guerilla warfare we may still not have achieved our aims by the time summer comes. Whilst this is unquestionably not a Vietnam situation now in 6 months time it might just look a little more like one.

People keep mentioning President Bush. Am I the only one who thinks he is Rumsfeld's poodle on this issue? To go back to a previous topic on the US democratic system, can I ask who voted for Rumsfeld?

Sarah

I'm proud that my country has the courage and common sense to do what needs to be done. George Bush (as well as most Americans) and Tony Blair seem to have learned from history, and we know there is a far greater price to be paid for inaction.

We disagree on this issue, but I think we all hope for a quick victory so our troops can reuturn home.

Samantha, I agree with you on wishing for a quick end to the war, but I respectfully disagreee with you on the rest of it. This isn't another Vietnam situation, and in the USA, the war is not unpopular. Most Americans do support our military involvement in Iraq.

I wish we could have everlasting peace, but we can't. There are too many people in this world who are not interested in peace, and as long as that's the case, the rest of us have to be willing and able to fight at times. Of course, there's always room for disagreement as to what constitutes a legitimate cause for using force.

That applies both on a personal level and an international level. It's why I carry a firearm, and it's why I support the current war in Iraq. We can't allow criminals to rule our streets, nor can we allow tyrants to rule the world. We do have to use force responsibly, though.

International diplomacy is necessary, as are our national laws and court systems. However, neither diplomacy nor law has any power to establish or maintain peace without the backing of brute force. We don't have to like that fact, but we do have to recognize it.

Diana

Here, here.

Sarah