1. I did not say that france or any party involved have a clean white shirt - all the nations involved have been digging in the dirt as it were. I find it rather hypocritical that one of the nations who has been funding terrorism on a large scale world-wide, who has been in breech of UN-resolutions, and which is about to be in breech of international law is shouting the loudest.

2. Very democratic - if someone does not do exactly as we want them we put pressure on them - as in the case sanctions against germany - but hey what do you expect, America is probably the only democracy were the candidate with 500.000 less votes wins!

3. America has still not come up with any plan, what it will do afterwards - sth. they probably don't really know themselves - bush just waffles, without giving any content - pure propaganda. 'He is running out of patience'(is that maybe the american analytical skills you were referring to?), well so I am with my neighbour, I might just go down and shoot him this afternoon!

4. America disregards all other voices, even from all the experts around the world as well as within America, who predict not only a humanitarian catastrophy but also the fact that war with Iraque will destabilize the whole gulf region even more, does do nothing in the war against terrorism (the real threat), weakens the UN, and probably will very likely aggrevate the whole muslim world (but hey - america can then just bomb the next nation and then the next and so on) furthering extremism. sorry but bush has far too many military advisors - and of course they want war.

5. This is about hegemony - or more precisely american hegemony. what really worries me is the 'missionray' zealousy of american policy and especially foreign policy. to refer back to point number 4 - where will this lead to ??? probably to american military occupation around the world - pax america, the new roman empire

6. I am not generally anti-american, in fact i have got very good american friends, but i am anti-american-imperialism and foreign policy. you may disagree, fine, but i am entitled to my views - maybe sth. that (and I just assume you are) as an american are not to.

the truth of the matter is as pointed out earlier - it ws the americans in the first place who funded saddam against his wars in iran as well as provide him with the technology and finance for chemical as well as biological weapons - germany france supporting saddam??? what the hell are you talking about - you obviously have got no idea. the whole thing is a joke - america is not concerned about the wellfare of anybody but themselves ... who will get the oil when america marches in ???? wake up - germany and france having contracts with iraque - what planet are you living on. facts are - yes the humanitarian situation in iraque is terrible - so lets go in and bomb them back to stoneage, that will surely help the iraqui population - america the hero of the hour, her to safe the world - not! America is breaching and has been breaching un resolutions in the past - iraque does and gets bombed for it. America has been funding (Osama Bin Laden, Southamerica, Africa ...) and is funding terrorism - Iraque, even experts doubt that there are direct links between al kaida and iraque - but iraque gets bombed.

....

Fact, the French is the largest supplier of convention arms to Iraq.
Fact, the French has sold them over 20 billion in Mirage fighter aircraft.
Fact, Chirac has has been Saddam's buddy since the 1970's.
Fact, Chirac signed the deal for Saddam to build a nuclear power plant.

I could go on, but I know that you will only disregard these facts and
choose to believe only the anti-American propaganda.

p.s any relation to the Sesame Street character? It would explain your
low grade kid analytical skills.

Iraq has been subjected to a totalitarian regime since July 1968, when Saddam Hussein seized power in the name of the Ba'th Party. Since then Saddam has plundered the resources of this nation for both internal and external aggression. Iraq is a wealthy nation with plentiful oil resources, but the Iraqi regime chooses to use those resources for violence. Iraq devoted 37.9% of its oil money to military expenditures in 1975, 75% in 1980, 177% in 1985, and 89% in 1989.

In 1980 and 1991, Iraq invaded two of its neighbors. The war against Iran, lasted from September 1980 to August 1988, during which hundreds of thousands died on both sides, and Saddam used chemical weapons on numerous occasions.

In August 1991 Saddam plunged Iraqis into a second war. The destruction on Iraq by the allied bombing and invasion, and the sanctions regime imposed as a result of the Iraqi leadership's policies, has killed an unknown number of civilians, set back Iraq's development by decades, and reduced an otherwise wealthy nation to a state of poverty.

Saddam is also responsible for a long history of internal repression against the Iraqi people. Mass murder, execution, torture, "disappearances," rape, and forced deportation are all used against real or imagined enemies to the state. In 1975, the Saddam waged his first war against the Kurdish citizens of Iraq, and in 1987, the regime carried out the notorious "Anfal" campaign that killed thousands of Kurds, with 100,000-180,000 more deemed "disappeared". In 1988 the regime used chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja, killing over 5,000 civilians and wounding thousands more.

In March 1991, immediately following the Gulf war, the Iraqi regime turned its Republican Guard units against citizens who had risen in rebellion against the regime - partly at the urging of the Allies. But without support form Allied forces, most of these people were massacered by Saddam's forces. In the south, the regime's defense minister bragged that the Republican Guard had killed 300,000 people.

Human rights abuses by the state are practiced daily in Iraq, against all sectors of the population indiscriminately. The prisons are overflowing, and the regime periodically conducts "prison-cleaning": mass executions to reduce the population of inmates. Officers and officials are executed regularly for their alleged involvement in conspiracies. In 1993, the International Commission of Jurists said that the human rights situation inside Iraq is worse than any country since the end of World War II.

your time trying to point out the facts to these pacifists. They are not concerned with the welfare of the Iraq people. As long as France has its oil contracts and the Germans continue their trade deals, they will continue to support Saddam.
The truth of the matter is that they know that we will uncover unGodly acts of terror and made in France/Germany on many prohibited technologies and materials. Thankfully, most of Europe is behind us. Many of the eastern states still
have fresh memories of what it is like to live under oppression and brutality. Even if they were behind us, what assistance can they provide? France has a single defective carrier and the Germans are only slightly better equipped. I have read
where they resent the fact that we are a "hyper-power". The truth is that they resent us because we remind them just how gutless they are. It is not Americas military equipment that makes us powerful, it is the "balls" to do what needs to be done.

It's enough to know your right. Affirmation from others is not asked or required. Saddam will be removed, democracy installed.

./configure
make
make install (su usa)

remember USA superuser when make install.

HEhe

Taken from my group's web site:
http://www.readingcampaigns.org.uk/campaigns.pl?op=show_campaign&id=2
and
http://www.readingcampaigns.org.uk/rdb.pl?op=viewarticle&aid=7

We believe that, given current circumstances, America and Britain should not attack Iraq. Some believe we should not at all, regardless of circumstances. We support the StopTheWar coalition in opposing a war, because we believe that they have motives other than those they claim are driving them to kill thousands of Iraqis, and possibly thousands of our soldiers, and that those motives do not justify a war.


Why we don’t believe their motives

Their primary claim in this is that they want to disarm Saddam Hussein’s regime, and remove his weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), because he is a threat to world peace. To begin with, Korea and Israel both own WMDs and are aggresive states in unstable regions, yet we are not being nearly as tough with them. Why is that? Secondly, Saddam seeks to preserve his power, and launching any attack on the west would result in his annihilation, so that doesn’t seem right. He could only gain leverage in his region, the Middle East, but even then it’d be unlikely that he’d use his WMDs against neighbouring countries unless he was forced to. The last time he used them, against his "own" people (he hates the Kurds), it was with the tacit consent of the west (we supplied the weapons, and made no big fuss about it, because at the time they were a useful ally against Iran).

The American government have tried to link him with Al Qaeda, suggesting that he could supply them with the weapons. But Al Qaeda want fundamentalist Islamic states - they hate secular states - whilst Saddam wants to keep Iraq as a secular state - he hates fundamentalist Islamic states. So why would two fanatical sworn enemies collude? Experts have suggested it would be extremely unlikely. And if a terrorist group wanted WMDs, it would find them more easily in former Soviet states, and maybe even in the USA itself, than from Saddam. So is he really a major threat?

Furthermore, we currently have weapons inspectors in Iraq, and, as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has stated, they are working with the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Last time they were there (before America pulled them out), they proved highly effective in finding and destroying any facilities that could hold or make WMDs. So if we want to get rid of them, why not just let the inspectors do it peacefully?

Finally, they say Saddam Hussein is evil. He certainly is, and his corrupt regime has tortured and murdered enough citizens to put him up there with the most repressive regimes in the world. But is it out job to save the Iraqis by bombing all hell out of them, or should we (for once) help Iraqi democratic opponents resist and overthrow him themselves?


So what are their motives?

I mentioned in the first paragraph the leverage Iraq would have over the Middle East should he have WMDs. This is their prime motive, because the Middle East has the world’s largest oil reserves (by a long, long way). Western economies depend on oil, and oil reserves in friendly places like the USA and the North Sea are quickly running out. That leaves South America and the Middle East. Friendly countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, have supplied many of the terrorists that have attacked America, and are posied to be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, so they may not be so friendly in the near future. With no friendly countries there, our oil supply becomes tenuous.

So America (with Britain eagerly following) wants to secure the 2nd largest oil fields in the world (Iraq) and secure the region with it, so that our economies can continue to rely on oil (when we should be looking at Green Electricity to end that!). In a strategic think-tank document, Donald Rumsfeld wrote that he wanted to turn the Middle East into a "boiling cauldron" so that America could "reshape the region". Don’t let it happen.

black and white! As a pacifist and humanist, I oppose both Bush's AND Hussain's crimes against humanity. There are other ways of bringing justice that do not involve bombs, such as an International Police and International Criminal Court, two concepts Bush seems to oppose! We've seen how affective the US wars have been in the past 25 years. The US helped the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan, because "we" saw them as less of a threat than the Soviets (perhaps at the time they were). After one war with Iraq, Hussain is still alive. After bombing Afgahnistan, Bin Laden is still alive. Perhaps catch22 should stop generalizing about all the people who oppose the war and actually look at the facts!

Do you suggest we send in the police and just arrest him. Do you think that is actually a possibility? There is only one way to stop this brutal dictator and free the Iraq people and that is by force. We know that France is clueless when it comes to liberating oppressed people. After all, we had to liberate them twice!
For all those that is oppose to war, please suggest realistic alternatives to what the US is proposing. Arresting Saddam and putting him on trial will work no better than continuing with this comical UN inspection plan. After all, the inspectors were to simply verify their wmd distruction not to try to find out where they hid them.

political Forum, but hey.

1. an aggressive war can never be justified - the notion of preventative war is downright stupid and dangerous - there is nothing that will stop other states from beginning wars (f.e India/Pakistan) on these grounds, especially when America does not adhere to the UN - of course the UN stays and falls (to some degree) with the US - even more important that they adhere to it, which Mr.Bush doesn't.

2. Iraque and the Iraque nation does not pose any direct threat at the moment - the US and Britain have failed to come up with any substantial proof that Iraque has weapons of mass destruction - the so called dossiers where more than embarising, pulled from the Internet and in large parts 12 years old

3. It was America in the first place who supplied Saddam before the first Gulf War with weapons of mass destruction for their conflict with Iran - and quiet frankly Saddam was a big buddy because of the oil - America didn't give a shit about the human rights violations then, did they? But suddenly they are trying to make a moral cause for war.

4. It was also America (the CIA to be precise) who trained and funded Osama Bin Laden and therfore El Kaida and the Taliban - Again because it suited them to keep the russians at bay.

5. America already promises Turkey a part of Iraquies oil as well as support in their dealings with the Kurdish population - great so lets oppress another minority and let the Turkish government deal with the Kurdish Population the way they like, so we can station our troops there !

6. America does not adhere to any democratic rules - it does what it wants. so when there is resistance or a matter of difference in opinion America coerces or buys their way through - for gods sake they are even thinking about sanctions against germany, why? because they voice their opinion (which by the way they are not alone with and it seems every sensible creature on earth shares the same opinion)- very democratic!
You might critizise Schröder, the fact is has backbone and does not back down for what he ultimately believes in (at least he is not like tony blair up to his shoulders in bushes arse)- fact is that economically a swift war with iraque would help the german economy, which is in diar needs and if anything would give him votes (by the time of the elections people will have forgotten about the war anyway)

Conclusion:

This is about American coercion and hegemony. Pax America - the new Imperialism and the domination on a global scale through military means. America doesn't give a shit about any other nations - they never have really (just look at environmental policies and the summits that they failed to adhere to although the rest of the world does!). their motives are expansion of influence and power. And in the wake of it what mr bush will manage to do is to start off WWIII - well done !

So mr chat22 - do your research properly and don't be such a dumb ass falling for american propaganda - the humanitarian crisis would be unimaginable - the repercussions would be tremendous - but mr. bush hasn't even delivered one sensible suggestion what is going to happen after the war - why? because he doesn't know - no one knows !!!

I could go on and on, but I better stop

1. I will repeat the fact that the NATO intervention in kosovo was not UN sactioned, but still needed and it succeded, didnt it ??

2.Should we wait untill he/they do ?? US cant prove anything ?? Neither can Saddam prove the opposit, but ofcourse you give him the benefit of the doubt.

3.The US support for Iraq was done in the light of the US Iran conflict. Should support in the past give a country a carte blank in respects to its behavior ?? "Support them once, support them allways " is that your logic ?

4. Yes US aided afghanistan against Soviet, and soviet aided vietnam i that war...it was the cold war, remember?? Battles were fought in the 3rd world. Fair ? no, but again who could know they would turn against their former allies ?? No one can predict the future.

5. Blaim the turkish government. not the US. How far would US get by saying no to all turkish demands ?

6. Let me get this straight. Going against US shows backbone, and agreeing shows your an idiot....okay, but if "everyone" as u claim is against america, isnt schröder just going with the flow ?? Also i doubt that any country calculates that war brings profit...

so to you "anonymous"..maybe you shouldnt be a dumbass and fall for anti-american propaganda. But in short, what you want is that Iraq be left alone, the sanctions removed. Saddam can rearm, and realize hes dream of leading an arab nation. Never mind that it will cost lifes..its okay, he's not american, and therefore we wount blaim him...its not hip.

Responses to this psot is welcomed, but I wont answer more. As so many points out, this is not the forum for it. I know i started it. and it was wrong, and therefore i stop now.

bravo!
woohu!

I can see why you oppose war on iraq so greatly. You seem to share Saddam's view on how to handle people who disagree.

ENDED IN THW WRONG THREAD

Great...just what we need. Is this site gonna get flooded by naive indirect saddam supporters now??

people who write this bullshit should be put together with G.W.Bush in a rocket and shoot to the moon !

I can see why you oppose war on iraq so greatly. You seem to share Saddam's view on how to handle people who disagree.

... that the way to treat people with differing opinion is no SO much different?
Personally, I would feel deeply ashamed to accuse somebody of breaking the laws of an organisation (namely: The UN) and in the same sentence make clear that I myself am NOT willing to obey to this laws as soon as they prevent me from doing something.

Sorry for this hard words ... but start to think for yourself!

tell the so-called peace movement to think for them selves. Bush is no eangel...i dont defend him. Sometimes u have to ally with deamons the defeat the devil. Civilians will die in a war, but how many havent allready died by saddams hand ?? and how many will die if we let him be ???

So why USA blocks any single try to make Israel stop killing palestinans?

Maybe because USA still dosen't need water as it needs oil.

You know, at the beggining, most people saw Hitler as a salvator from Stalin... did you know what happened next?

because the situation in isreal is no where near as black and white as you make it appear.....

... and this is why they know that there is one and only instance that can justify this war: The UN and the (don't know the proper english term) world security council. If this institution votes "No", then with every war Georg W. puts himself just aside of Saddam Hussein as someone who ignores the law of nations!
There is no discussion about wheter Saddam Hussein is a dictator or not ... but as I said before, there is one and only one instance that is empowered to justify a war, and that is NOT the president of the united states.

The UN is a useless debate club. NATO went in to Kosovo WITHOUT the UN, and arent we all glad today that they did ????

The Germans say no to the US simply because Gerhard Scröder needs votes desperatly and the best way to appeal to his former red voters, and the best way to appeal to his parlementary support (the green party) is to oppose the US no matter what...

Russia oppose because they have financial agreements with the baath parti to develop new oil wels in iraq...France...well, they miss the days of Napoleon. They dream of being a big power again...as for China, well any chance to go agains t the kapitalist america is used.

I hate to reply to a political comment on this site as I really don't think that's what it's for, but UN and NATO would not be here were it not for the US. The League of Nations was a failure because of the lack of US support and the UN and NATO are becoming failures. The purpose for which they were created is no longer valid and they're searching for new identites - and failing miserably. The UN is letting itself be walked all over and setting an example to countries like North Korea that it CAN be walked over.