US best interest to leave UN.

Why do you hope for a war?

No, you have "governments" behind you, which is not the same thing. Nations as a whole (ie, the people) is in no way majorly rallying behind the US, as evidenced by tomorrow's protests.

Out of 6 billion people worldwide, how many will be protesting? A majority?

What a stupid question. I imagine we can not count the ones starving or living in ignorance, who could have better lives if the people of the industrial nations would stop chasing the dollar all day.

Also, the kind of thinking in this thread is the worst kind of isolationist, jingoistic, xenophobic thought. Has it ever occured to you that the US is just TOTALLY OUT OF STEP WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD?

Maybe when everyone else is looking at you like you're a violent sociopath you should start wondering if they have a point.

Burke, I meant that the people of the nations that supposedly support the US action do, in fact, not.

I don't know if the majority of the world is for or against this conflict. That isn't a question that should necessarily be asked. Governments matter in our current system, as that is what the focus of everything (the UN, sanctions, war, etc.) is on. That doesn't mean that people don't matter, just that in this grand geopolitical chess game, the people are much more scattered and harder to get the pulse of. Governments, on the other hand, are much easier, and they act as policy makers for the people in their nations anyway. Therefore, is it really the case that the rest of the world thinks the US is a violent sociopath? Even those nations who oppose US action (France, Germany, Russia) wouldn't think that (I don't think). Their rhetoric may point in that direction, but rhetoric is not thought. I think these nations see the US as an actor looking out for its best interests, and those interests are in conflict with what they see as best.

As far as leaving the UN, that isn't the best idea. We may not act within the bounds of the UN (in the sense that there is no official UN vote of support), but there isn't a better system out there. Ideally, there would be reforms on the Security Council - shrinking the body, reforming the idea of who is a permanent veto-wielding nation, etc. I'd say there should be the following nations: the US, Russia, China, Japan (for economic strength more than military), an EU member (representing the EU - even combined their military strength is not as much as the US, however their economic strength is). Add just a few rotating members to this - one from each continent, perhaps. Really, this may blow as much as the current UN does. It's a conundrum, and one I am not up to solving.

How can we know? According to public opinion polls and what we see on TV, Iraqis are against US action, however, when they are not being threatened with torture, the story is much different. (Just one example)

Threatened with torture? How about when they are threatened with huge amounts of US bombs raining down on their homes?

Read Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm. Reading about a dictator like Saddam in action is enough to make a death by bomb look merciful. Even though the level of destruction may seem like a lot, the duration is on a whole different level. They'll face what, a few weeks of bombing, as opposed to 25 years of fear and torture?

Oh, let's not forget who is violating the Geneva Convention by intermingling his troops with civilians. Why would he do that if a) the US had the disregard for human life he has or b) the US wanted to wipe out Iraq?

I'm not ready to throw out the U.N yet. I will say this though I can't respect it if China is handling human rights (One small example Libya as well).

I agree that the UN is not a perfect organization, but it would be stupid not to support it...especially if someone really threatening came along. That does not mean that I think we should always obey it, but we should at least be a part of it. Its ideas like these that allowed Hitler to come to power.

Sorro's response was what I meant Blunt. I find that throwing out words like "majority of the world's citizens" to be mere hyperbole.

There was a poem in the local paper today about how the silent majority, a majority that supposedly opposes the war, needed to rise up and make it's voice heard. What the poet doesn't understand is that there is no "silent majority" waiting to be heard. There are people on one side of the issue and people on the other side. The "silent majority" is on neither side, and their voices are heard... in silence.

What do WE get out of being in the UN...besides billed.

Membership in the UN is a good deal if you're Somalia, or Lybia.

From a return on investment standpoint it's a very bad deal for the U.S.

I believe you have that reversed. Isolationism allowed WWI to happen, not WWII, if I remember correctly. The problem with Hitler is the same one as now, appeasement. The UN and the "axis of impotency" want to do nothing about an evil dictator who has an immense amount of power within his grasp (billions in oil here...).

US does not want history to repeat itself, but the UN seems determined to let it. I'm for ANY kind of action against Iraq, war, more embargos, whatever...as long as it gets the job done.

Now, there are those that argue that LIFTING all sanctions against Iraq will help the people out and do good. I say you people are insane. You are the people who would let 6 million Jews die and then afterwards scream at the gov't or the Vatican or whoever: "Why didn't you do something?"

All I'm saying is, something has to be done. Anything we would do to the Iraqi's (which would not include dropping bombs on random civilians you military strategists) couldn't be anywhere near how brutal Saddam is to his own people or would be to US given the chance.

"I believe you have that reversed. Isolationism allowed WWI to happen, not WWII, if I remember correctly."

Pulling out of the League of Nations before it even began gave it absolutely no power, and we definately did withdraw after WWI from European affairs.

"The problem with Hitler is the same one as now, appeasement."

Yeah, but Saddam isn't Hitler, he doesnt have one of the greatest armies in the world and he isn't too smart.

"The UN and the"

"axis of impotency"

What is Fox News doing to this country? Is everything now going to be a buzzword? Does everything have to be cute and short? The axis of impotency? Are you serious? Man...simplification is a motherfucker.

"want to do nothing about an evil dictator who has an immense amount of power within his grasp (billions in oil here...)."

So, do a lot of scary regimes.

"US does not want history to repeat itself, but the UN seems determined to let it. I'm for ANY kind of action against Iraq, war, more embargos, whatever...as long as it gets the job done."

I agree with that. I think one of the problems is that the US is only talking about war, I havent heard any other options.

"Now, there are those that argue that LIFTING all sanctions against Iraq will help the people out and do good."

Ok, I havent heard that arguement.

"I say you people are insane. You are the people who would let 6 million Jews die and then afterwards scream at the gov't or the Vatican or whoever: "Why didn't you do something?""

Uh, do we really have to bring the Holocaust into this? Can't we talk about Saddam as Saddam? Do we have to compare him to Hitler? The Holocaust is thrown around way too much.

"All I'm saying is, something has to be done. Anything we would do to the Iraqi's (which would not include dropping bombs on random civilians you military strategists) couldn't be anywhere near how brutal Saddam is to his own people or would be to US given the chance."

I agree that Saddam is a dick, but I draw opposite conclusions to you. I think if we go in we have a better chance of causing war than if we dont.

I agree with you on some points, but others drew the comparisons to WW2, I was just commenting that I also think the similarities are there.

Also, I got the "axis of impotency" (ie, france germany and belgium) from Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, not Fox News.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler makes me want to set your house on fire. Just stop the madness.

Fuck off, hypocrite.

The comparison is valid. Perhaps extreme, but valid. I've seen you making bold comparisons of such idiots as pat buchanan to hitler, but you say saddam is not a valid comparison? Hmm.

It is for those that make excuses for Saddam that I weep.

More and more I'm beginning to realise that the vast majority of Americans are good, innocent people who are simply being misinformed, corrupted and riled up by a well-known few. The current US administration.

The Americans who are being hated wrongly are those who are too afraid to voice their anti-war and anti-foreign policy sentiments for fear of being called "Un-American" by the right and the O'Reilly drones.
Many Americans are hurt and confused, and don't know what to think.

I always loved America before 9/11. But that event fucked me up as much as it did everyone else, and my perspective was changed for the worse. I was angry at what I saw happening, and at the lies and the attitude I saw displayed. But after awhile, the reality of the situation began to dawn on me.

More and more, any anti-American sentiment I have is disappearing and being replaced with a searing hatred for the government that's going to make the world a worse place for everyone, especially innocent Americans.

It's sad to see that Americans are being marginalised for expressing what they believe is the plan that best benefits both their country and the world.

And yes, I know that that statement can be used by both sides, but let's cut the bullshit. We all know where this war is headed, and what it's all about.

You have to understand...most of us on the outside...the "third-world countries", the "towel-heads and sand-niggers", and the irrelevant, old-world minorities...we know this wartime life. We know aout living with hate, disorder, and uncertainty.

And most of us know about overcoming it.

Are you prepared and willing to sleep in the bed that Bush is about to make?

OK, if Saddam is somehow knocked out of power on his homefront, his son will NOT be the successor.

It will be a free-for-all among all the military leaders. Who ever has the power in that country will rule.

Please.

If anyone is out of touch with American sentiment its the Anti-War folk. There are overwhelming opinion polls (something like 65%) in favor of military action against Saddam, and only 20% against.

I'm not "pro-war", but I am for almost ANYTHING that gets Saddam out of power. The weaklings at the UN won't do it, but at least Bush has the testicular fortitude to say, "Hey, the man is lying to you all and its so obvious." To which the response is "Yes, but..." No, there is no but. He has and is and will lie again and again. He defies US and UN treaties/resolutions. The man must go.

To tell you the truth, I care DICK for what France or anyone else thinks we should do. If there plans made sense instead of just living into there history of appeasement, I would listen. Sometimes the gov't has to say, "Fuck off." and stand up for what they believe to be right.

Over 30 (including the powerhouse known as Belize) countries support the US and only 3 or 4 vocally oppose. So all this "unilateral" attack bullshit perpetuated by the media can go out the window.

If someone can think of another way for Saddam and his entire regime to be gone, be my guest, I would LOVE to see a non-violent solution. If not, then you ain't part of the solution.

Or maybe W's just jealous of Saddam because he gets elected every time with 99% of the vote and George couldn't get a majority vote. (that was sarcasm, but I'm sure I'll see it on an anti-war poster soon.

PS-- There are many well thought out reasons to not go to war. That we are just "doing it for oil" is about as valid as a 3 dollar bill. Use better rhetoric and maybe people will listen.

Smirk, shove your opinion polls up your ass, because they're shit and you know it. Let's not base policy on 200 people getting randomly called at dinner time. Also, stop saying dumb stuff.

Smirk, you care and appreciate when other countries agree with the US, but when others disagree you want them to "fuck off"?

Well why didn't Bush just let the US army attack on its own with his big bad self?

Honestly, I would be so much more comfortable with this war if the government would simply state its real motives for going to war, and say "And there's nothing you underdeveloped motherfuckers can do about it."

But bullshitting innocent people about "Evil" and "Freedom", and the irrelevance of an organisation like the United Nations and all that fuckery is an insult to everyone in the world.

Edited, cause I didn't read an earlier post by Smirk.

Way to pussy out Call.

I would like for the term "pro-war" to be changed to something like "pro-action".

Because if the US Congress declares WAR, then every single country that has ties with the U.S. will have to decide whether they are on the side of the U.S. or not. And if they aren't, then all ties with the country will be cut.

War is the most extreme option.

If and when the U.S. declares war then all of the tip-toeing around, as has been recently shown by Germany, France and Belgium, will be jack-shit. They will then have to decide which side they are on.

I, however, feel there will not be a war as what the U.S. Constitution defines it as. (All this "war on terrorism" or "war with Iraq" is proof that the media simplifies a complex topic and 'hook' people to watch whatever they have on at the time.) Also, the members of the "Axis of Evil" are not Constitutionally-defined enemies of the U.S., they are only enemies when war has been declared on them.

Bush can only move troops. He can't declare war.

Is that proper grammar?

I think you missed a comma.

86, killing thousands of people with the army is war whether you want to use that term or not.

Also:
Way to pussy out, Call.

Devin, I was merely pointing out that "war" was not used with its correct definition.

Korean War = Not a war. A policing-action.
Vietnam War = A conflict.
Gulf War = A conflict.
"War on Terrorism" = Intangible opponent.

I was merely adding my two cents with the definition of what everyone is using frivilously.

So if you go to war and Canada decides to go with the U.N., you'll stop buying Alberta oil?

Fat chance.

I meant all DIPLOMATIC and TRADE ties on the GOVERNMENT level.

And, since you brought it up, what oil would you want me to buy then?

Besides the fact that they are both bad guys who did horrible things to there people...there is not a good comparison at all. They are from vastly different cultures and vastly different backgrounds. They also have different motives. Saddam is not as sick in his head, and most of his atrocities were committed to mantain his control on the different groups of people in Iraq.

Maybe it would make a lot more sense to classify Saddam in his own category, it would also be a lot more respectful to the people that were killed by these two men. Just saying they are all the same type, all the same breed and that these people died for all the same reasons is ignorant.

What, you mean like saying you want to burn down people's houses for not agreeing with you?

Also, I'm going to stand by my statements, but perhaps I was a bit harsh. I'm not having a good week.

In fact, I think I'm going to stop caring about this shit, since ZeroOne is going to be taking over the earth soon.

it would also be a lot more respectful to the people that were killed by these two men. Just saying they are all the same type, all the same breed and that these people died for all the same reasons is ignorant.[/QB][/QUOTE]

What you mean the Kurds/Jews comparison isn't there? What a relief!

Why, all of it good sir.

You do know that Alberta exports vast amounts of oil to the States and elsewhere, yes? Alberta's economy is built on oil. If the U.S. were to cease trade with the Canadian government, doesn't that mean we stop selling things to one another? I doubt the U.S. would turn their back on Canada. Our economies are too intertwined.

Might as well write off the I.S.S. as well, because Canadian robotics play a major role. Do away with all things Canadian and you'll be putting that thing together by hand.

I don't think the American government would take "with us or against us" literally either. Allies can agree to disagree, y'know. It's not black and white. All this bitching and moaning about France and Germany is just that, and probably won't amount to much in the long run.

At that point there just wouldn't be any. The vast majority of petroleum imported by the United States is from Canada. We can't get from Venezuela currently and Saddam's 9% wouldn't supply the needs of one small State.

I still wonder why all those wells in Texas are still capped.

Haw!

Now that I see how Kronos answered the question, I realize I totally misunderstood it. I thought you were asking what oil I expected you to import from us. My mistake.

Point's the same, though. Regardless of whether we follow you into battle or not, you're not likely to break ties with us anytime soon. We want your money, and you want our stuff.

You know what's strange? The United States gets most of it's oil from Canada. Which means Canada -that pristine wilderness region- actually drills for oil in pristine wilderness areas.

And restrictions keep the United States from doing the same damned thing on our own soil on a smaller scale to help alleviate our foreign reliance.

So let's see...can't drill in roughly the same region Canada does because supposedly the area would be ruined...but Canada drills without any ecological problems...so the environmentalists are only interested in preserving the American Wilderness and to hell with Canada, eh?

Because when was the last time the environmentalists protested against Canada drilling Athabaska?

I say we force-march the Canadians down here, we take over their country, and not tell anyone in the middle-east. That way, the Canadians can suck the nerve gas and absorb the dirty bombs, and we get the oil!

Game-Set-Match!

Maybe the Canadians-become-Americans wouldn't spend decades fucking around in Middle Eastern politics and supporting lunatics, thus never making anyone want to attack them.

Just saw The Quiet American. It brought me back to how America behaved in such a way to get us sucked into the Vietnam war. Are we doing it again? Is history repeating itself? Arrrgggghhh!

Oh, this won't be another Vietnam (which was also what Afghanistan was supposed to be) because we learned the one simple lesson from that war: "stay out of Vietnam."

We're still in Afghanistan. Tell me it isn't another Viet Nam when we're not there anymore.

And it's too bad that we didn't learn more than "Stay out of Vietnam." If only we had learned "Stay out of the politics of other regions with our imperialist bullshit."

What you mean the Kurds/Jews comparison isn't there? What a relief![/QB][/QUOTE]

I dont think its there. I think the Kurds are a challenge to Saddam's power, I think the Jews were a scapegoat for Hitler.

I don't know where you are getting that figure of Iraq's oil. Because Iraq has the 2nd largest reserve. Maybe the figure is from the number that the UN has restricted Iraq to produce. U.N. sanctions against Iraq are a key factor in holding down worldwide oil production and keeping oil prices high. Because of the sanctions, Iraq produces fewer than 2.5 million barrels of oil a day.

If Iraq had its government overthrown, the country would need to rebuild. The only way to do this is with oil exports. That would mean that it would produce about 10 million barrels a day.

Of course, that would drop the price per barrel down about $15. Then OPEC would get pissed. And using Texas, Louisiana, Coast of California, Oklahoma, or Wyoming for oil would be pointless because it wouldn't economically sound. Tehn there would be taxes on the imports, blah, blah, blah...

This is boring.