Sept 11, your feelings& if should we attack Iraq?

[WalkerInTheWoods]

Personally I do not understand why the US President wants war first. Usually you use war as a last resort. Yes we have had problems from Iraq and Saddam in the past, but I do not think that we should jump to war before we explore and try all other possibilities. There is a bigger picture here than just the US and Iraq. Almost all the other countries of the world do not wish to attack Iraq unless there is more proof. Several countries are even thinking of joining with Iraq if the US should attack them. This little war could turn into something big, which no one needs. If we wait then maybe one day Saddam may do something. But if that should happen then it is likely that most if not all the rest of the world would want to stand against Iraq and stop Saddam. That in itself will most likely keep Saddam from doing anything.  I do not want war. We tried ousting Saddam before but we only, excuse my language, half a$$ed it. We even offered support to the citizens to get rid of him back in the 90's. Then when they needed the US we backed out and left the rebels high and dry to face Saddam. So is it any wonder the US is so disliked? Instead of killing everyone that opposes us, maybe we should try to be more friendly and stick by our promises. In doing so we might, just maybe make a few friends. I think the US has become too big for itself. It is becoming the bully. If the US does not like someone they just try to remove them reguardless of what may happen to other people or nations. The US just seems so trigger happy. Why not look for other more peaceful means of doing things?

As for the terrorist attack on the US, well it was only a matter of time. I mean as I explained above we do not fulfill our promises and treat other nations like crap if they can offer us nothing of value. We will most likely see more acts as long as we continue in such a manner. But the average citizen should not worry. Think of all the times that they actually tried to blow up the WTC. They were bound to succeed someday if they kept trying. For the most part I think such acts are stopped before anything happens. There are probably many more attempts at terrorist attacks that we do not know about but they were stopped. It was only a matter of time before someone got through our line of defense. It happens, life goes on and hopefully we learn from it. Giving up freedom will not help anything. Making things more efficient and making people do their jobs right will prevent most attacks. But I think it is impossible to prevent all terrorist acts as there is always a weakness in every defense and if someone really wants they will find it and exploit it.

[McArthur]

Personally i take the view that the United States Government is a world aggressor and the unsavory activities of its secret services and its dubious foreign policies are directly responsible for the 911 attacks. Read some Noam Chomsky. Heres a link to a short video of him (i have copied&pasted the transcript and comments here)  at the BBC website, along with another article about Nelson Mandelas critcisms too; Wake up America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2002/september_11_one_year_on/2229628.stm

Noam Chomsky - Full transcript
It is generally assumed that the September 11 terrorist attacks have changed the world dramatically, that nothing will be the same as the world enters a new and frightening "age of terror." There surely is some truth to that. The target on Sept. 11 was not Cuba, or Lebanon, or Chechnya, or one of the numerous other traditional victims of large-scale criminal violence, but a country with the power to shape the future, to an extent without historical precedent.
Nevertheless, I think there is reason to expect essential continuity: to expect policy choices to remain within a framework that is well-entrenched, modified perhaps in important ways but not fundamentally changed. One reason is the stability of the basic institutions in which decisions are rooted. But there are also narrower ones.

It is worth recalling that the war on terror was not declared on Sept. 11, but 20 years earlier, when the Reagan administration came into office, announcing that a primary focus of policy would be the war against international terrorism, primarily in Central America and the West Asia/Mediterranean region. The rhetoric was much the same as today. Many of the same people are playing a prominent role.

We know a good deal about the first phase of the war on terror. In brief, its commanders compiled a record of terrorism that vastly exceeds anything that could be charged to their adversaries, continuing until the present day. And they were not forging a new path. Twenty years earlier, John F. Kennedy had ordered his staff to unleash "the terrors of the earth" against Cuba because of its "successful defiance" of the United States, and they did so, with grim effects. Meanwhile senior statesman Dean Acheson announced that legal issues do not arise in the case of a US response to a "challenge [to its] power, position, and prestige."

When President Bush proclaims the right of preemptive strike against potential threats, he is basically adopting Acheson's principle. More closely, he is paraphrasing the Reagan administration doctrine that the US is entitled to use military force in what they called "self-defense against future attack," the official justification for the bombing of Libya. Current rhetoric about Iraq has earlier roots. A century ago Woodrow Wilson wrote that "Our interest must march forward, altruists though we are; other nations must see to it that they stand off, and do not seek to stay us." He was referring to the "liberation of the Philippines," with a ghastly toll. And Wilson was merely borrowing from Europe's global conquests.

After tragic experiences that we need not recount, efforts were made to construct an international order in which the powerful would not be free to resort to violence at will, on shameful pretexts that we also need not review. But it is now fashionable to hold that the framework of law and treaties that was laboriously constructed must be discarded in favor of a new principle -- which is in fact the old principle: the self-anointed "enlightened states" will serve as global enforcers, proclaiming a new era of justice and freedom under the guidance of "the idealistic New World bent on ending inhumanity," as the world's leading newspaper assures us.

A rich record is available that allows us to evaluate such pronouncements, which are all too familiar. The record can be ignored only by those who choose to have blind faith in the nobility of the leadership that pledges to drive evil from the world.

Others will prefer to examine closely what has been achieved in the name of "ending inhumanity." They will seek the reasons that lie behind the standard pretexts. To take one current case, they will discover that the reasons now offered for invading Iraq held with at least comparable force before Sept. 11. And that the reasons held with far greater force a few years earlier, when Saddam Hussein was being welcomed as an ally and trading partner by the US and Britain, who even provided him with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. His worst crimes were then in the past, and well known; and he was a far greater threat than today -- facts that surely raise some questions.

Those who are not satisfied with blind faith should also listen to the words of high officials when they are not strutting on the stage. If they do, they will find that planners expect a "widening economic divide," so that the rich and powerful will have to develop more powerful means of control and destruction, which pose awesome threats even to survival.

We can choose to huddle under the wings of enforcers who proclaim their allegiance to the highest principles and values, or take responsibility for our fate, and that of future generations. The latter choice is far harder, but is the only one that can be contemplated by decent and honest people.

Comments by readers;

A voice speaking to the wind, reason flauted by facts, a lamentation to the humanity's inability to thus far to end the violence, greed, self centeredness at the core of individual and collective consciousness.
Don, USA

It is good to be reminded that Bush represents only 25% of the North Americans. His simplistic and dogmatic approach to everything he has dealt with since he became president has strengthen for me and many others in the 'ally' countries the image of the US as a nation that abuses its power, uses extremely hypocrite double standards, and has a total lack of respect for this planet. Many of Clinton's policies, including Kosovo, were also more than questionable, but it seems that every time the republicans are in government the US has to attack some Arab country. The shameful track record of North America's military actions started with its war declaration against Spain in 1898. They discovered then how to use lies (in this case the sinking of the Maine) to pursue their economic interests and they have not been able to change this attitude ever since. We saw it happening again in the previous Iraq war, when the false testimonies about the disconnected incubators proved to be decisive in getting the Congress' go ahead and the population's support. This can only be changed from the inside, by all those who did not believe they could make a difference by voting in the last elections, by all those who can understand that honesty is more valuable than a billion dollars. If only the moderate and educated North Americans were given more voice inside than outside the US.
Paloma Castro, Spain

Noam Chomsky's points about the War on Terror bring to mind the idea that the first victim of War is Truth. Unfortunately, most Americans' view of the world is "dictated" by what they see on TV. Tragically for Americans, this is a very biased view. As Americans remember the anger of a year ago, and the tragic loss of life, do they consider the thousands of innocent lives that have been lost in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Haiti etc? Do they have in-depth coverage of the firemen who died trying to put out fires in Nicaraguan Hospitals and Schools that American planes bombed? Until we have a balanced view of the world, we can expect these tragedies to continue. Fortunately there are Americans like Howard Zinn, Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky, among many others, who help shine a light of truth in these dark times.
Simon Geraghty, Ireland

Well done! The essays were both thought provoking and important on a day such as today. If only we had Noam instead of George leading the US!
Laurence Kenney, UK

Great Stuff, I think these video essays should be delivered to George Bush's inbox, the man needs to know what everyone else is thinking outside of the US. Please post more Noam Chomsky essays and videos.
Chris McDowell, UK

"Unfortunately, most Americans' view of the world is "dictated" by what they see on TV. Tragically for Americans, this is a very biased view." As much as I am 'American,' I have to disagree. After visiting many foreign countries, this sort of attitude is prevalent in Europe, and its not hard to see why-- our president seems to think the US *should* be the world's policeman. But I assure you, there are plenty of people here in the US who are speaking out against the far-right rhetoric. I only wish to request that those seeing our president's actions and hearing his flag-waving speeches should not be so quick to attribute them to the will of US citizens. Many of us are doing all we can to stop them.
Henry Behnen,USA

Noam Chomsky is needed in the world as there should always be a reverse opinion so democracy can continue. However I lived in NYC at the time and never want to experience fear like that again. It may be selfish but we need countries like the US and UK to attack rogue nations so we can live our life in freedom.
Alan, Scotland, UK

Thank you for what seems to be a sane and unbiased view on the actions of the modern western powers. How though can we 'take responsibility for our fate, and that of future generations' when the systems that are in place and that are responsible for such behaviour are, as you say, so firmly in place. It seems that the situation is now getting even worse. In particular with the merging of new corporate media giants having an even greater influence on public opinion which ultimately lays down the borders within which politicians can act.(i.e. enough pro-war propoganda in the media can justify almost any war). As these new corporations are private money making enterprises (a proportion of which may be owned by politicians themselves) they will have their own interests which may not be in common with those of humanity in general. So basically my question (to everyone) is this: what can you do on an individual level to make things better when faced with such a powerful propoganda ! ma! chine.
David Williams, England

Very intereasting, these people all seem to have very valid points, and it's made me think, but why is everybody airing on the side of caution. It's very easy to do this a year on, but they all seem to have forgotten how angry everybody was a year ago.
Anon, UK
************************

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2251067.stm

One of the world's most respected statesmen, Nelson Mandela, has condemned United States intervention in the Middle East as "a threat to world peace".
In an interview with the US magazine, Newsweek published on Wednesday, the former South African president repeated his call for President George Bush not to launch attacks on Iraq.

Mandela on the US  
Bush motivated by arms sales and oil
willy Cheney a 'dinosaur'
US responsible for Iran's Islamic revolution
US action led to Taleban  
He said that Mr Bush was trying to please the American arms and oil industries.

And Mr Mandela, 84, called some of Mr Bush's senior advisers, including Vice President willy Cheney "dinosaurs".

He said that the United States' backing for a coup by the Shah of Iran in 1953 had led to that country's Islamic revolution in 1979.

On Afghanistan, Mr Mandela said that US support for the mujahideen (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Soviet Union and its refusal to work with the United Nations after the Soviet withdrawal led to the Taleban taking power.

"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace," he said.


Mr Mandela said that the US was clearly afraid of losing a vote in the United Nations Security Council.

"It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America," he said.

He said that no evidence had been presented to support the claim that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, while former UN weapons inspector in Baghdad Scott Ritter has said there is no such evidence.

"But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody mentions that," he said.

The former South African leader made it clear that the only member of the Bush team he respects is Colin Powell.

He called Mr Cheney a "dinosaur" and an "arch-conservative" who does not want Mr Bush "to belong to the modern age."

Mr Mandela recalled that Mr Cheney had been opposed to his release from prison.

[michael]

excellent last post..yep..read Noam Chomsky..USA freignpolicy has been a disgrace...more folks killed in Afghanistan than in twin towers..but that is apparently ok....I deplore what happend in USA but i deploreed gulf war in 1991(for oil..damn all to do with the crooked Kuwait regime)..vietnam cambodia etc etc....cheney?avoided fighting in Vietnam as did Dubya..his pop got him to jump a list of 100 000 to get into the national Guard.......

[Adrian]

Greetings!

The forces of darkness will never be defeated by more, or worse greater forces of darkness. The forces of darkness exist in order that mankind can excercise its own freewill in choosing the path of light. And it is the light that will always defeat the darkness.

Those that perpertrated 9/11 and other such attrocities, either in their own name or the name of religion, any religion, will suffer the inevitable, inescapable consequences by immutable Universal Laws of cause and effect. The terrorists and other agents of darkness can run, but they cannot hide.

A pre-emptive strike against Iraq (or anywhere else) would be driven by the forces of darkness, and those that instigate and participate will not escape the laws of cause and effect which work beyond the minds of human material justification.  Motive is taken into account, but revenge is not a motive.

Only when humanity can rise above primitive actions and instincts, will the entire world live in peace and progression towards its true destiny.

It isn't for man to deal with Iraq, natural laws will always prevail by metering out the perfect divine justice.

With kind regards,

Adrian.

[MJ-12]

hr

[Flying Free Bird]

"It isn't for man to deal with Iraq, natural laws will always prevail by metering out the perfect divine justice."

Natural laws will surely prevail, but that doesn't negate the need for law and action against criminals and evil movements. Example:
A criminal robs a bank. OK. The natual laws will prevail. The guy will suffer karmatically. But I hope that noone thinks that it's enough.

Personally I haven't come to a conclusion re. Iraq, but what I do know is that they refuse access by the UN investigators. That's reason (when considering the possibilities) enough for being a bit tough against Iraq.
It's quite possible that Iraq is manufacturing devastating weapons. Sometimes it's painful to do what you need to do, to evade future greater pains.

[density]

quote:Originally posted by Flying Free Bird:

Natural laws will surely prevail, but that doesn't negate the need for law and action against criminals and evil movements. Example:
A criminal robs a bank. OK. The natual laws will prevail. The guy will suffer karmatically. But I hope that noone thinks that it's enough.

It is enough! Surely, it is not enough if you want to sustain a sick society like this one but it is enough as a karmic punishment. The evil always punishes itself. If not the robbers punish the banks for their evil deeds the next depression will do it.

quote:

Personally I haven't come to a conclusion re. Iraq, but what I do know is that they refuse access by the UN investigators. That's reason (when considering the possibilities) enough for being a bit tough against Iraq.
It's quite possible that Iraq is manufacturing devastating weapons. Sometimes it's painful to do what you need to do, to evade future greater pains.

Here a list of countries that produce nuclear weapons:

the United States
Britain
France
Russia
Kazakhstan
Ukraine (correct me if this is wrong)
PR China
India
Pakistan

if I forgot any send me a PM


Now imagine your neighbour just bought a tank including ammunition. He uses that tank to blast away another neighbours house who raped his daughter. Then he warns you that he would blast anybody's house who dares to attack him or tries to buy another tank.

Now have a look back at the list of all the neighbours that own a tank.

.
.
.



"Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open."  -  unknown

"Real science can be far stranger than science fiction and much more satisfying."   - Stephen Hawking

[Rob]

Dunno, Saddam is evil, but then I can't think of any regime which the US has put in place after replacing the old one which has really lasted. And some of them have failed in quite a horriffic way eg Sierra Lione. Also an attack on Iraq would further destrabalise the Arab world, which is currently very tetchy and unbalanced anyway, so the consequences could be far reaching. Hey, isn't 2003 prophesised as an important year? Could be connected, as the attack which is almost certainly coming will probably happen at the end of this year/start of next. What makes me sick is that Blair is acting as the US's lacky again, when a large majority of British don't support him ("Mr Flibbles very cross" - Red Dwarf).
One other thing - Iraq is not a threat. Saddam may be an absolute ba***rd but he isn't stupid enough to mount a direct, even nuclear, attack against the west, that would be pure suicide and he would be crushed like an insect if he did. As for supporting terrorism, we have no proof of that, but we DO have LOTS of proof against Saudi Arabia on this change. Also since Mr Hussein knows there is a very real threat that he will be ousted and probably killed he won't be thinking of trying to annoy anyone, but (hopefully) pacify. If he has any sense he will allow the inspectors back in. The reason he chucked them out was because he was getting nothing in return - they had been inspecting for years and the sanctions were as tight as ever (causing massive death of young innocent Iraqis). Why then should he bother letting them snoop on him? To then say he is flouting UN resolutions well maybe, but who can really blame him. So he invaded Kuwait - but the US has invaded more countries than I could possible hope to list. More hypocrist, more greed, more power mongering, more war, and more money for the rich. I really hate politicians sometimes.

[WalkerInTheWoods]

About half of the US population does not want to go to war with Iraq either, Inguma. So clearly from a political view going to war is not smart for either US or UK leader. I guess the Pres is thinking that once we are are war he can just use the good old propaganda to stir American's patriotism into supporting him. Personally the abuse of this is getting annoying.

[Adrian]

Greetings!

Yes I agree. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no excuse for pre-emptive aggression under any circumstances (and indeed it will not excuse the perpetrators whoever they are, or whatever their motive is), two of the main issues appear to be propaganda and revenge - both very, very wrong.

Everyone sympathises with those affected by the 9/11 attrocity, but, as has been pointed out, there are places in the world where humans suffer every single day. Look at the last few decades in Northern Ireland for example.

Before the USA or UK do anything, they have to examine their motives very, very closely, because they will be held accountable by Universal laws.

One of the main problems is that people tend to have a very singular and short term perspective of the world, and do not see it as part of the eternal evolution in the eternal and infinite  now, and everything should be seen from the perspective of everywhere, everywhen and everywhy.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[density]

On another day of September more than 60 years ago German soldiers in Polish army uniforms attacked Germany. A faked attack that was meant as an excuse for war.

We know that of course because the Germans lost the war eventually. If they had been victorous the history books would possibly write it differently.

In World War II the US hesitated to enter the war. Although the government wanted to help Britain a majority of the Americans was against involvement. Pearl harbour changed the situation over night.

Have a look at this: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Was the pentagon really the objective of a terrorist attack? If it was a faked attack it would mean that the US government at least knew what was going to happen. Even the possibilty that it was supported or produced by the US government exists. Until now noone has taken responsibilty for the attacks as it is quite normal for terrorists to do.

What we know, however, is that this all gives Pr. Bush enormous powers to do things he would not be able to do otherwise.

I have read of another hoax produced by the Bush administration. Right after taking over the white house they claimed that the Democrats left it unusable and chaotic. Later they rectified this but still it had the wanted effect.

density

PS: Adrian, I thought you aren't interested in politics  This post of yours is too good. It would be a pity if not posted. I am not interested in politics either but nowadays you have to understand how politicians use their appeasing skills to manipulate the people's minds. If you do not you become one of these mindless creature that would cry "yes" when another "Hitler" would ask them if they wanted war.
Well, maybe I would be interested in it but it is a too dirty business.

.
.
.


"Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open."  -  unknown

"Real science can be far stranger than science fiction and much more satisfying."   - Stephen Hawking

[Blossom]

Logically speaking:

FROM...http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-0911.shtml

American Airlines Flight 77
Pentagon (DOD Building), Washington, D.C.

American Airlines Flight 77, operated by a Boeing 757- 223 (N644AA) on the morning of September 11, departed Runway 30 at Washington Dulles International Airport for the 4+ hour flight to Los Angeles, California at 8:10am local time.

On board the aircraft were 58 passengers (including five hijackers), four flight attendants, and the two pilots.

Shortly after departure, the aircraft disappeared from FAA radar screens and ceased responding to air traffic control radio transmissions.

The aircraft was turned around and flown back toward Washington, D.C. from the north. The aircraft then reportedly proceeded to descend over the White House, enter a tight 270° turn, and fly toward the U.S. Department of Defense Building (Pentagon) in northern Virginia.

Witnesses reported that the aircraft clipped trees and lightposts as it descended at a high rate of speed, before impacting the the south-west face of the Pentagon Building.
======================================
Questions regarding above... If you believe a plane did not hit the pentagon, what do you supposed happened to the above plane with it's passengers??


--------------------------------------
NEXT:  okay, after reading the above article and printing it here for you guys, and I am biased about the pentagon though I can't say why,  I decided I wanted to send/find some eye witness accounts of the crash and it seems the cameras were conficated by the DOD.  How odd...

Check this site out...http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm  This is really a strange site.

Does anyone remember the initial news coverage saying a helicopter had hit the pentagon???  It seems I do.  I am fixing to do a search and see what I find about it.  But I remember this because I was sitting in front of the tv glued to the set because of the Tower coverage.

What happened to the people on the plane?  Do I dare say a thought that is going through my mind?? Do we shoot the plane down and cover our butt?

I am still looking for stuff...  I'll be back..
Blossom


Just wanting to learn....

[Tom]

What do you think all the talk about attacking Iraq is doing to the people in Iraq who are listening to it? I can tell you that it would make me nervous to hear that someone was thinking about starting a new war where I live. Just the weeks or months of hearing the idea debated would be stressful.

[density]

quote:Originally posted by Tom:
What do you think all the talk about attacking Iraq is doing to the people in Iraq who are listening to it? I can tell you that it would make me nervous to hear that someone was thinking about starting a new war where I live. Just the weeks or months of hearing the idea debated would be stressful.

You do not need to be an Iraqi to feel like that.



"Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open."  -  unknown

"Real science can be far stranger than science fiction and much more satisfying."   - Stephen Hawking

[Frank]

I don't want to sound patronising, but I do feel strongly that September 11th, 2001 was the day America was introduced to the real world.

I don't want to lose any online friends here, but I would like to respectfully stress (again) that there is a large proportion of the world's population who live and die in the most awful conditions. So I would ask those who live in the USA to please get this incident in perspective.

Killing people in Iraq isn't going to make things right. All that is going to do is make you yet more enemies.

Yours,
Frank




   

[Blossom]

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/index1.htm
Takes awhile to load. Has 5 pages with roman numerals at the top for browsing.  Interesting photos and worth looking at..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/lies911/lies.htm
This is very interesting.

okay, I don't what to say.  I feel sorry for all the innocent people that have been hurt and will be hurt as we progress down this path our government is on.  I feel we [usa] are choiceless in the fact that we have to be behind our president.  But, on a personal note, I hate all this.  No good will come of it at all.  I think regardless of what happens at the UN about this decision concerning war, we will attack.  The president does not need their approval.  He merely wants them behind him.

I think in my heart that our president wants war and saying that Iraq is consorting with terrorists is an excuse.  He opened his mouth last year and he is trying to pull his foot out.

I remember talking to my brother n law a few months ago and I mentioned how sorry I felt for the true afghans at the delimina they were in at the hands of the taliban and the state of their country.  He attitude about it is typical of politicians.  He said all people can change and it their fault...

How the h*** can someone change in a situation like that.  Honestly, if I lived in a country like afghanistan and the Taliban were the source of food for my family and they would die if I didn't join, I would join.  I think most people would whether they would admit it openly in a forum or not.  How many people would truely watch their families die for their cause?  I hear so much talk about you can't trust them... They change sides too easily.  I would too if changing was better and I were given a different choice...  Any choice is better than starving or dying.  Obviously being a martyer is better to some of them than their life is.  Can you imagine a life so terribly that dying is better?? And once you are committed to being a martyer, you couldn't change your mind because you would get killed.  Their families are taken care of.  They are hightly honored in a society that is starving.  It would be the choice of the choicelss... Where ever you go would have to be better.  They have so few choices there..  Living, dying and eating.. if they are lucky they have a tent... It is so ironic..  During all that, we fed them and killed them.  Jeez... how utterely sad... I sat and cried while I was compelled to read about the women, children and young people there during those terrible times. ..  It was heartwrenching to me.  Before I go further, NO, I am not condoning anything the terrorists did.  They were wrong wrong wrong and we had to defend our turf by attacking.  I believe our attack was justified.   I just feel sorry for the true afghans that live there however.  I would hate to make their decisions about life.  I don't think I would be strong enough to handle it.  Maybe that's why martyers exist over there.  Could that possibly be the easy way out of a hard life hoping where they go is better than what their life is?? Knowing their families will be honored for a change??  Those things we cannot change..  Those are beliefs and ways of life...  And I am getting carried away here.. Forgive me please...  I am new here and certainly don't want to be an outcast..  I just hear about this all the time at home and nobody feels about it like I do...

Iraq:  There are innocent people there too.  Caught up in their government just as we are here...  like Bush..  Caught up in his power trip about war.  Wanting to be #1.  No, I correct  that.  Enjoying being the number one power in the world...  That's what this is really about.. a power trip which will cost many people their lives.

I know innocents die in war..  It's just how it is and that is true in any war and will always be so.  The casualities...  

I agree with the person above.  Part of me wants this and part of me doesn't want it.  But this war...with people who have nucleur weapons..  We are going to attack because they have nucleur weapons..  I guess Bush wants them to use them while we are prepared.

I read in an undisclosed site that Iraq was selling nuc's to the Tabiban..  Maybe that's what Bush is trying to stop..  

But no matter what, the innocents are the ones who will suffer the most.

I have suggested to my husband a move to Canada or Switzerland.  Switzerland is cool.  They are nutreal to everyone.  They have bridges set with explosives to blow ANONE up who crosses trying to do them harm.  They harm noone, but will do major damage to defend itself.  Too bad more countries don't have that philosphy... including the us of a....

Blossom
[a confused republican]

Just wanting to learn....

[PeacefulWarrior]

I agree with Frank...Sept 11th was basically the day that many Americans woke up...and I think a lot of AMericans are even moe zealous about war now than they were before, which isn't a good thing.  I stand in the middle on this issue.  I see Adrian's point of view, which is indeed the truth (Universal Law, etc.).  But I also realize that we live in an imperfect world and regrettably, people like Saddam invite violence because they are violent.  I mean, if someone robs a bank and we get their liscense plate and photo do we not go after them because natural spiritual laws need to take their course?  Of course not, we arrest them and make them pay for the temporal laws that they broke.  The natural law will take its course whether the guy is in jail or not.

I think the the US should seek help form the UN for one more try o get inspectors back in Iraq and if Saddam refuses again...then what?



fides quaerens intellectum

[Frank]

I truly feel it would help if people were to please, please get in mind that no-one actually dies. There is no such thing.

Yours,
Frank

[Blossom]

I truly feel it would help if people were to please, please get in mind that no-one actually dies. There is no such thing.

Yours,
Frank

Thank you Frank... Such simple words and suddenly everything is in perspective again...

Blossom/Jennifer

Just wanting to learn....

[Adrian]

Greetings,

Yes, Frank's words are simple but profoundly important.

The lack of knowledge and understanding of these realities is one of the main problems facing humanity today.

Regarding the law - the law is perfect -  created by, and administered by perfection. Motive is an extremely important consideration of the law -  revenge, retribution and propaganda are not positive motives.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[BDHugh]

Did anyone happen to watch The Late Show with David Letterman last night? Former President Clinton was on it. I have to agree with what Clinton says. I know that my country has pretty much been involved directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of 8,000,000 innocent people worldwide. But it's time for peace now. The only way for there to be peace in the Middle East (according to Clinton) is to stop the killing between Palestinians and Israelis, removal of Saddam, and end to terrorism, and most importantly economic development. Economic development is key. Yes I have to say its time for the removal of Saddam. He is a threat to the Middle East. The CIA funded and trained Saddam because he WAS a violent man, and could kill his own people. He does this whenever his position is threatened. If we want peace in this region, we can't have this kind of leader in charge. Also according to Clinton is that the Middle East should try not  to become the oil capitol of the world, but the energy capitol of the world. They can begin to install solar panels all of the desert. This will be good for two reasons. China and India are growing fast, and dependency on oil when these two countries become super economic powers is not good for any country.

[Adrian]

Greetings!

I am trying very hard to stay out of this thread http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0>

But one has to ask - what has anything outside of the USA to do with the USA? Has not the USA embarked on similar foreign excursions and failed to achieve anything positive? As has Britain before them in the colonial days, And the Vikings before them, and the Romans before them and so on. What became of it all when one country has global ambitions of power? Nothing.

The same goes for every other country of the world relative to every other country of the world - not just the so called "super powers" who grant themselves the de-facto right to manufacture and wield weapons of terror and mass destruction.

The destiny of mankind is not determined by Bush, Blair or anyone else living on the physical plain in the temporal moment.

Yes - every country and individual has the right to defend itself if threatened, and to heal his brother and sister - but the reality of it is, the USA was attacked because it, at the time, failed to adequately identify the dangers, and take the necessary measures to defend itself - for the reasons which are now becoming apparent - and it now seems to be engaged on a face saving excercise of retribution under the guise of being the self-appointed police force of the world.

All perpertrators of "evil" and their agents will pay according to the law sooner or later - there are no exceptions to this - none - ever.

Man needs to focus on the positive aspects of humanity and the higher realms of existence, and once it starts to do this, and realise the realities of the Universe, the planet will start to become a much better place for all that temporarily inhabit it.

Please do not take my comments out of context - I like the USA and its people, and have a great many friends there and elsewhere. I sympathise with those that lost loves ones on 9/11, but if only they knew more about where their loved ones are right now, what they are enjoying, and what all of this means in the grand scheme of things things could be very different.

With kind regards,

Adrian.

[BDHugh]

I agree with you Adrian, the thing that George Washington when he died wanted the most for America is to stay out of the affairs of other nations. We should not be the police, we should not revenge because there is no justification. My whole point was that for there to be peace there must be economic development for these people. We exploited them and they gave us a wake up call. We have to make things better collectively for quality and benefit of humanity, not just for  the U.S. in particular.

[jilola]

I only hope that this war on terrorism doesn't stop after the bullets have run out. The war should extend to the eradication of the social and economical problems that are the cause of terrorism.
Terrorism is the lashing out of those who have no other way of affecting their predicament. This is not to say that it's in any way justified.
The bad guys need to get caught with as little harm to the bystanders who are the vast majority and then the conditions which spawned the acts need to be remedied.
As far as removing Saddam and replacing him with someone else, how does anyone know what kind of a guy the new one will be and how long before he gets bumped by a new Saddam? As mane examples poasted in this thread show the best thing usually is to stay away from other countries internal politics.

2cents

jouni

[Adrian]

Greetings BDHugh!

Yes - I see your point, and Washington was indeed a great man.

But let us analyse "economic conditions" for a minute. It is all coming back to the same thing ultimately - materialism, money and power - some of the nemesis of mankind right now - there are others, but that is another thread http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0>

Why do people think that ever increasing materialism is a good thing?

Of course people require living conditions, but who is to say that the person living in a cave or a tree is worse off than the person living in a mansion?

Of course mankind should try to right any wrongs he does against his fellow man, but in the case of Iraq for example, I don't see how cruise missiles are going to help anyone - especially innocent people.

And while the leaders of the world pay lip service to the plight of the starving in Africa and other places, they might like to reflect on how many people could be fed and sheltered for a long time for the cost of a cruise missile.

With kind regards,

Adrian.