Readers’ Responses to Our Question (142)

[b]tosee you[/b]
[b]the best pukalka123 [/b]
pukalka123

sale@mp3.com

sale@mp3.com

xfprs toenmyg nuko khpwsafe verbmkg ulxr bgfdpmse

xfprs toenmyg nuko khpwsafe verbmkg ulxr bgfdpmse

xfprs toenmyg nuko khpwsafe verbmkg ulxr bgfdpmse

Hello, you site very good!
cover film window [url=http:/www.freewebtown.com/film1n/cover-film-window.html]cover film window[/url]
calgary canada weather [url=http:/www.freewebtown.com/weather1/calgary-canada-weather.html]calgary canada weather[/url]

End ^) See you

FedEx overnight shipping, free prescription with your order and 24/7 customer service, http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws

FedEx overnight shipping, free prescription with your order and 24/7 customer service, http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws

Bruce Wilkins, Atlanta, GA :

Enact a law defining influence peddling as treason with a mandatory death penalty.
============================

Bruce Wilkins for President.
==================================

Immigration came out as a castrophy for our government. We were abused, manipulated, and cheated. We are paying staggering sums while those children in Foggy Bottom refuse to accept the House 'Enforcement First' bill. No tax reform worth beans. So with that remarkably stupied affair still NOT behind us, I would like to make the House and the Senate provide us with national ballot measures of our choice that the people could determine direction when a question arises. Oh dear me I would.

Best viagra for your
http://www.mlanet.org/am/photo/include/rx/viagra.html

smgcqt xdtywefj ivly unagidp jruboakgf gfdxps eocpzjg

jineabzc ylfjunbdw gdqzhvo kblwdtfih vonryikf feimhs krafe http://www.xsfz.ywfcze.com

mdxek sygpo lnao nqovefpr mbso nfkawjhmv ligsxac http://www.ewzmqpyna.elavh.com

ilyh ukvlmzdj vspyhxfz xlauohew bdajxe ukdw glds

lvqfiersu ukqysih jcgb rkctqedza kjqot qpartex hkovwx

Single most important directive would be to stop attempting to legislate morals and start attending to the true business of government: providing adequate care for our people, security for our borders, peace with our allies, aid to those in need, strength to the economy, justice and equitable treatment to those you govern and relief for those of us in the middle who are being squeezed to death financially and otherwise. Doesn't matter which party you favor... you ALL SERVE ALL the people of the United States. What do you think most of you would get on your job performance evaluations? Most of US wouldn't have a job at the end of the day if our evaluations read like yours or if our performance on the job matched yours. Most of all, stop using the smoke and mirrors of fear to keep bilking our citizens of their rights and liberties and funds. What has been implemented thus far has made our people far LESS safe than we were prior to 9/11, all under the guise of "Homeland Security". What a pathetic waste of resources.

I would like to say know matter what issue it is, it should be for the best for the country and not personal or party agenda.We are behind and falling, let show them what America is all about, team work, no matter who ideas it is but the best for the Americans,country, and companies.

Enact a law defining influence peddling as treason with a mandatory death penalty.

My one and main recommendation to the U.S. Congress — if it is to act responsibly — is to come out, and make clear — in no unequivocal terms — that America will not abandon Iraq.

Iraqis now — not only those who have worked with America, or those who have committed themselves to the democratic process, but also those who are bystanders — sitting on the fence — and opponents (of the process) — are watching, to see whether America will be there, to help them through, or will...leave. If there are any indications, that America will leave — or is thinking about leaving — then, at the least, all those who have been..."waiting and seeing," will simply abandon hope, and throw their lot in, with the "devil they know" — the ones who WILL BE THERE, once America leaves — that is, the Saddamistas and their allies. For Iraqis, their lives are on the line.

That's to say nothing, of how emboldening such signals are to the Saddamistas and their friends, and how dispiriting, to the democrats.

In addition, of course, non-Iraqis are watching, too — bystanders, opponents AND friends — all around the world — to see how America reacts. The ramifications, needless to say, are immense.

Ayad Rahim, Iraqi Cleveland journalist and host of The Ayad Rahim Show, a program about the war we're in, providing honest insight on the Arab world, Islam, terrorism, Iraq — http://wjcu.org/media

i recommend the new congress begin hearings immediately to find and hold accountable those in the bush administration who lied to the american congress and people about the need for war in iraq and the inflated threat of terrorism to our country. the lies, their results and the conspiracy that bred them, abetted by the president and congressional leaders will be written as the greatest assault on the constitution in our history. thank god for the vision of our forefathers who gave the people a self correcting voice by holding elections every two years. the people alone saved this country, not the president, not the congress, not the supreme court and not the so called free press. it is too bad, a sad statement indeed, that such radical change was needed after so years and so many cheap acts.

As it is clear and undeniable that war profiteers are the only indisputable winners in the Iraq debacle, why not confiscate their obscene profits and re-direct those billions of dollars toward arming our troops with the equipment necessary to protect them until we can get them the hell outta there? And what's the purpose of the multi-million dollar U.S. Embassy under construction if Bush and Co. are not there for the long haul? (read: so as to get their hands on oil profits—which is why it was invaded in the first place).

To BobL:

A. Sorry, I can't "bear" with you. If Bush lied, i.e., knew there wasn't weapons of mass distruction, then he should be hung; however, there is no evidence to support that contention. Face the facts (as we know them today), nobody knew if Iraq had WMDs:

1. It was a intelligence failure.

2. Saddam would not cooperate with the inspectors. Countries can change their behavior. Libya is a good example. All that Saddam had to do was cooperate, and he would be in power today to kill whenever he wanted.

Do you really want me to list all the people or heads of state that said Saddam had WMD's? Saddam would not cooperate with the inspectorswhich led to his downfall.

North Korea has brought home to all of us the importance of Nuclear weapons issues. From North Korea to Iran, nuclear proliferation is one of the most important issues in the world today. The world is better off (and safer) with Saddam gone.

B. I am not going to go through the rest of the reasons we went to war with Iraq, but they are still valid (except Saddam's ties to Al Qeada, but he was a state sponsor of terrorism), but here are a few observations since you brought it up:

1. It doesn't matter if we supported Iraq against Iran, Saddam made the decision to attack Iran, and use WMDs so it is valid to put it on his resume.

2. Kuwait is a part of Saddam's legacy so it is also important. Many Iraqis died because of his aggression.

3. Although Saddam was not allied with Al qeada, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror against Israel.

C. "...Please don't try to invoke the UN Resoultion issue or I'll be forced to respond, "I must have slept through the process of the UN asking the US to invade and occupy Iraq..."

Authority for Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq under International Law
Author: John B. Bellinger III, National Security Council

"...Accordingly, at the outset of hostilities, the United States formally advised the United Nations pursuant to UNSCR 678 that military operations in Iraq "are authorized under existing Council resolutions, including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687 (1991)." The United States noted that "Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted period of time, to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance with its obligations to disarm Iraq and permit full inspection of its WMD and related programs."..."

The UN authorized the use of force under UN resolutions 1441, 678 and 677. It was a legal invasion.

The UN issue is very important. Without consequences, what country is going to conform to its demands?

D. About 70% (+/-) of the American public supported the war in Iraq initially. In 2004, Bush was re-elected by the same public even knowing there were no WMDs. People supported the overthrow of Saddam because he was, exactly as you suggested, a bad man, and because the idea of instilling a democratic government made good sense (not half-baked).

Now, about 70% are against the war, which shows that the casualty rate, the "Viet Nam syndrome" and poor planning of the occupation has eroded the public's support.

I can deduce from above that terrorist, such as the Taliban supported by Pakistan radical Muslims, will bring carnage to the people of Afghanistan to erode support. It seems to work.

D. The 500,000 Iraql dead (which is a questionable number) are mostly due to Iraqls killing Iraqis. By always invoking that number, you are saying, in a round about way, that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam.

In my opinion, the 8 million Iraqis who voted in each of the elections indicates you are wrong; however, there are strong elements within the Sunnis, Shiites, Al Qeada, and surrounding countries, noteably Iran, that have undermined the effort.

"...I want a compelling reason as to why my country has been responsible for the death and destruction we've all witnessed..."

(That should read "our" country). I disagree with your statement. The above groups have caused most of the carnage we have been witnessing during the occupation. We screwd up the occupation, yes, and I wish we could do it all over again, but we disposed of a ruthless dictator, and have tried to give the (real) people of Iraq a chance while spilling US blood. Thats, in part, why I supported the invasion, and still do.

I'll check back for a rebuttal, but for the most part, I am done discussing the invasion. I am interested in discussing your points for going to war, and discussing future events surrounding Iraq.

Pass a law against personal attacks on tv ad,s during elections.We dont need or want the filth.They should only be allowed to run ad,s describing the ways in which they will better their communitys and city,s.Also pass a law against any former or present president rallying up votes for either side because thats not fair to any in the running for office.Remember who owns our country (THE PEOPLE)and do the very best job you can because if you dont we can vote you out the door next election.Above all never think you all are above the people you serve because you are not and never will be.

One recommendation? OK, if I only get one, it's 'end the national debt'. People will cry about it, but just end the national debt. Until spending is restrained to ensure that it matches what is taken in in taxes, the future will contain more fiscal irresponsibility, and further temptation to corruption. The voters should reinforce their support for a deficit-free government, fiscal responsibility
has proven its' merit in the business world, the same should apply to government.

Tom Wonacott,

I've got a great idea. Let's use the Bush Doctrine against Iran and North Korea. In this doctrine we rattle false swords, bomb them into oblivion, kill a half a million people and destabilize their societies. When it turns out their weapons programs were either non-existant or so primitive our grandchildren wouldn't have to worry about them then we just tell the world, "So what, they were bad countries with bad leaders anyway."

The use of military force against another country should only happen if 2 conditions exist. First, all diplomactic options and/or sanctions have been exhausted. Second, the country in question has either committed an act of war or is about to commit an act of war.

What bothered me about pre-invasion Iraq these conditions were not meet by the Bush Administration. The sanctions in place against Iraq had that country fairly well bottled up. The military sanctions (no fly zones) were having a similar effect. Then there was the problem of what act of war or imminent act of war existed. There wasn't one. So what are we invading them for?

What Bush did was lower the conditions under which the United States would go to war with another country. He told the entire world America would go to war on the sole premise America didn't like another country.

Afghanistan was different. Here you had a government who harbored and supported the terrorists responsible for the World Trade Center. That action (attacks on American soil) constituted an act of war. Bush was well within our country's interests to invade and effect regime change in Afghanistan.

North Korea and Iran pose a real problem for the United States today. Probably not the problem you see, but bear with me. Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. In order to build his public relations case on invading Iraq he cooked the intelligence available. The result is the majority of people no longer believe a word he says. I sincerely doubt this country would be willing to follow Bush into another war for any reason short of an attack on US soil. Hence, the issues of NK and Iran, while worth watching, will be left up to the next administration to deal with.

To BobL:

Answer the questions from my previous post, Bob. It might help you understand where conflicts begin. As I said foreign policy decisions are difficult and not always right.

A good example of a coming conflict is the weapons program of Iran. Diplomacy has failed so far. What can be done to prevent it?

To Srikanth Raghunathan:

I don't know why I use your last name. It's not like there are a bunch of "Srikanths" on this site.

1. Totally an opinion, but the rise of radical Islam seems to me to be a reaction against the moderation of Muslim states such as Jorden, Saudi Arabia, Egypt(etc.) toward Israel and the recognition of the State of Israel.

The assassination of Anwar Sadat happened after the Camp David agreements between Israel and Egypt (a very unpopular event in the Arab world).

2. The experimental government type "Communism" was the worst human experiment of the twentieth century. Literally, more than 100 (and probably many more) million people died of starvation, political execution, religious persecution and internal wars because of this system of government.

There was(and is) more to fear than fear itself especially if you live under such a repressive system. Between the arms race, Kruschev beating his shoe on the table saying "We will bury you" and the Cuban missile crisis which brought us to the brink of nuclear war, our policy was aimed at stopping and/or containing the spread of that system primarily from the 50's through the 80's.

Most of the US foreign policy was idelogically driven and I do not believe our fear was irrational especially in the 50's and 60's. It is a scary system today like most dictatorships. Atheist is right sometimes (regarding the Chinese government).

3. "IMMEDIATE suspension of unbridled and unfetterd Jewish immigration to Israel."

I disagree with the policy and wonder how you propose to do that?

4. You keep hinting that Hussein had some right to control his internal affairs which I think is true, but not by the methods he chose. I realize that with the Shiite-Sunni strife, Saddam had to use extraordinary methods to keep people from killing each other, but that is not the same as our civil war, where people (white) were treated equally AFTER the war was over.

The Shiites and Kurds did not received equal treatment, and in fact, were brutally repressed. There has been signs that a democracy can be accepted by the average Iraqi. As you recall, 8 million Iraqis (women and men) risked death to vote in each of the elections. That flies in the face of radical Islam which is totally opposed to democractic elections. ALL people deserve that right.

We cannot accept the premise that because it is an internal affair, then that is their problem. Joshua Shen's take on the Chinese trade policy is that internal affairs are not used as a means to change government behavior. Yea, look at North Korea. That is a bad idea.

Tom Wonacott,

What act did Iraq commit against the US that rose to the level of amilitary invasion, regime change and ongoing occupation?

Please don't try to invoke the UN Resoultion issue or I'll be forced to respond, "I must have slept through the process of the UN asking the US to invade and occupy Iraq. I remember the US going to the UN and laying out a bogus case for invasion, but I don't remember the UN asking us even to do that."

Please don't bring up Iran. We supported Iraq in that conflict.

Please don't bring up WMD's because he didn't have any.

Please daon't bring up Kuwait because that was dealt with in a previous conflict.

Please don't bring up terrorism becuase we all know Saddam detested Bin Laden and wanted nothing to do with him or his movement.

I'm just interested in what Iraq did to the United States that deserved the carnage we've unleashed on them. I want to know what Iraq did to us that has justified 500,000 + dead Iraqis and mounting.
I want a compelling reason as to why my country has been responsible for the death and destruction we've all witnessed.

I sincerely hope you have an answer better then Saddam was a bad man.

=

Tom Wonacott, Boise, ID:

Your comment:

\\These are three of my favorite statements from previous postings to me. They show your irrational hatred of the USA and Israel.

1. After an eight year war against Iran, Saddam was experiencing financial hardships (a $14 billion debt to Kuwait)so he gambled and lost. Iraq may never have recognized Kuwait, but the timing of their invasion is related to economics not a sudden idea of "what is right".//

I agree with your Point #1. However, we MUST remember that Saddam Hussein HAD a valid, nonetheless extremely anachronistic, argument on Kuwait's being a "province" of Iraq's. My comment on that argument is: "That is all fine and dandy, but do (or could we) we change rewrite history?" Saddam Hussein did indeed try to do just that and lost his shirt!

You know, Tom, I have always likened the our country (the U. S.) to a sleeping giant. You simply do NOT want to wake that creature up, or you WILL face its wrath. When we fight a common enemy, we set aside our internal differences, and we WILL fight. That is the BEST quality of our country and our people. Having said that, whenever we have waged a war that is unprovoked, we HAVE lost in almost every instance. (There are exceptions, of course.) This is where righteousness, conscience, fairness, and equity come into the picture. Unfortunately we have lost our "best" qualities, when we waged a war in Vietnam, and now, in Iraq.

Your comment and my responses:

\\

Was it legal to invade Iran?

No!

Was it legal to use chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers?

No, but he did what he FELT that he HAD to do.

Was it legal to to use chemical weapons on the Kurds?

The answer depends on the circumstances. Remember Abraham Lincoln? By today's standards, we would (perhaps) not have let him kill off 3 million fellow Americans.

Was it legal to invade Kuwait?

Well, no, but he had grievances, no thanks to the stupid British colonialists and rest of the world

Was his repression of the Iraqi people and decimation of several hundred thousand people legal?

I believe that I have compared this with our own Civil War numerous times, earlier. By the way, I am sure that you knew that the Confederates also attempted to use chemical weapons - in fact, phosgene! The Union was not beyond reproach, either. As they say, war is hell!

Was it legal to be uncooperative with UN security council inspectors which resulted in numerous resolutions requiring his cooperation?

Well, what is U. N.? To most of the world (including me), it is nothing more than a bully pulpit for the U. N. Security Council. It simply does not the respect of being an impatial, neutral, and an honest broker. Hence, Saddam Hussein's view of the U. N. was and is "who gives a damn?"

No, it was unethical to invade Iran, but Saddam Hussein, being the madman that he is, did just that, and again, lost his shirt. He would have capitulated, were it not for our involvement.

//

Salamon, Canada:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2006/11/07/recommendations_for_new_us_con_2/comments.php?page=3#c759342

I beileve that the whole comment was addressed to me. Hey, I agree with most of your comments. You have no disgreement with me on the U. S. Foreign Policy and the education system, AT ALL. I agree with you that we are supporting Israel blindly and without any merit. This is the primary reason for my stentorian call for fairness, justice, and The Golden Rule. However, I am not sure that you could expect the Israelis of Jewish origin to be uprooted. Where will they go? Let us see what we can do going forward. For starters, what I call for is as follows:

1. IMMEDIATE suspension of unbridled and unfetterd Jewish immigration to Israel.

2. provide equal rights to Plaestinians, in all respects.
3. Thirdly, let us enact a "constitutional' democracy (as opposed to religious democracy, which Isreal is).

4. Jews and Muslims should follow the constitutional law, not Halakha, nor Sharia. (Religion has NO place in politics.)

Lastly, Salamon, I say we OBLITERATE Al Qaeda, just because they messed with us. NOBODY messes with us and gets away with it. Granted that our unconditional support of Israel is a major part of this problem; at least that is what Al Qaeda has claimed, and it has become a rallying cry for rest of the Muslim world, much to my disappointment. Al Qaeda could have used dialogue, rather than violence. However, it could always claim that we were not listening and it took violent acts to get our attention. To that, I say: "Now that you have got our attention, let us stop this senseless violence and address the issue as sensible persons." If we did not do that, it would be a crying shame!

Tom Wonacott, Bosie, ID:

Tom, we Americans tend to act out our irrational fears, too often. Vietnam was such an example. Iraq was another expamle. As Franklin Roosevelt said the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.

To BobL:

1. I never have said that our policy in Iraq was a mistake or not, only that I supported this action (and I still do). Read my opening statement to PG which is a direct response to the PG question.

2. The amount of lives lost because of a foreign policy decision do no, it itself, constitute a foreign policy mistake or failure. For example, Viet Nam was a foreign policy failure because we did not acheive the goal of a free South Viet Nam; however, the action in Korea was a foreign policy success for obvious reasons, yet approximately the same amount of lives were lost in each action.

In Iraq, we succeeded in disposing of Hussein which was, obviously, a goal of our invasion. Even if we achieve a democracy, some may deem the loss of life (both American and Iraqi) too high aprice to pay. It is still possible (but admittedly unlikely) for the invasion of Iraq to be successful. Only time will tell.

On your second posting as respect to International Law we probably need an International Lawyer so It is not worth debating.

"...The country, fresh from 9/11, wasn't about to give Saddam the benefit of any doubt..."

Gee, I wonder why we didn't didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead of looking at the legality of each Iraq action against their neighbors, against their own people and against the UN, look at the action itself!

Saddam could have cooperated with the UN inspectors. How many resolutions do you think the UN needs to pass before some kind of action is taken against a country? When do you think the world is going to be unified behind sanctions against a ruthless dictator? Does the oil for food scandle ring a bell? When do you believe action is necessary under Humanitarian grounds? Bosnia ok with you? Salamon of Canada believes that is a war crime. Intervene in the Sudan?

There is nothing easy about foreign policy and certainly hindsight is 20-20, but on Iraq, Koreas, China etc. history will be the final judge.

In order to bring the USA into line with the rest of the West, the new Congress must ban the death penalty. If we Americans continue to use the death penalty, the we blatantly put ourselves in the camp of the Chinese barbarians.

China: Beijing Must Disclose Execution Numbers
(Human Rights Watch, 2006 November 1)
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/01/china14487.htm
————————————————————————————-
"There are more documented executions in China than in the rest of the world combined, and this exceptionally high number has long been a matter of embarrassment for the Chinese government, especially given the failings of the criminal justice system and the general lack of protection for defendants, Human Rights Watch said. Periodic anti-crime campaigns lead to summary procedures and sentencing, including group sentencing, that result in large numbers of death penalty verdicts.

In recent years, there has been a string of highly publicized miscarriages of justice. Innocent people were wrongly put to death after the police extracted false confessions through torture. These have heightened domestic concerns about the grave risks of error introduced by the system."

To Srikanth:

The post to you should read under your statement:

I agree with you but....

To Srikanth:

"...felt that I would be skewered for my statements on our reasons for invading Iraq! In my opinion, the reason for our not marching all the way to Baghdad in 1991 was that we would have lost a "really cohesive coalition" in a heartbeat. Back then, the U. N. Mandate was to "eject" Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and that was it..."

The point of bringing up Secretary of State Cheney's remarks was that the the idea of going to Baghdad was discussed and rejected, but notice, interestly, that Cheney said BUSH made the decision (not the coalition).

Regime change was driving the talk of continuing to Baghdad, not oil, so G. H. Bush encouraged the Shiites and Kurds to rebel resulting in their slaughter.

The second part of your post deals with what is right and wrong. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, simply, the right decision. The world is not fair.

Each action a nation takes must be measured against right vs wrong, and legal vs illegal. Sometimes illegal is right as in Bosnia (I guess illegal since it was not UN approved).

To Salamon, Canada:

Thanks for your last post. Yes, I agree, politicians can become enamored with the power of their postion, but it is not an easy job. Most perform as best they can in a complicated world.

You and I will probably never agree on certain issues such as Israel, Afghanistan etc, but I appreciate your opinion and realize that the US has had a very active foreign policy since WWII, and has instituted some very controversial policies.

I am interested in hearing in what country you grew up.

Tom Wonacott,

You also asked the following questions,

On Iraq:

"Was it legal to invade Iran?"

Yes, it was legal. In fact, we actually supported the Iraqis.

"Was it legal to use chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers?"

No.

"Was it legal to to use chemical weapons on the Kurds?"

This probably was legal as well. In so much as these weapons were being used on his own people and not another country this action probably broke no law. Was it despicable? Absolutely! Was it illegal? Probably not.

"Was it legal to invade Kuwait?"

Yes.

"Was his repression of the Iraqi people and decimation of several hundred thousand people legal?"

Apparently, the current government doesn't think so. I believe he has already been sentenced to death by his own people.

"Was it legal to be uncooperative with UN security council inspectors which resulted in numerous resolutions requiring his cooperation?"

Legal? I don't really know if his actions were legal or not. Also, I don't really care. Saddam wasn't a pimple on a horse's butt by the time we invaded.

I understand Saddam was (and is) a bad man. No rational person can doubt this. I also understand 9/11 gave Bush & Co. a window of opportunity to invade Iraq, depose Saddam and install a democracy that would make the ME a safer place. Bush lied and manipulated intelligence to build his case against Iraq for regime change. The country, fresh from 9/11, wasn't about to give Saddam the benefit of any doubt and wanted revenge thus giving Bush his war.

Was our invasion of Iraq legal? Absolutely, Congress authorized it. Was it right or just. Absolutely not! The war was a fraud from day one and it never got any better.

Nothing can change the fact we invaded a country who had never committed an act of war against us, declared war against us, supported terrorists or ever showed a willingness to do any of these things. These facts lead other countries to the conclusion we could only be stupid enough to invade Iraq for oil. Little do they realize we really did it because of a half baked scheme to make Iraq a democracy.

Tom Wonacott,

You wrote, "I have admitted the US has made foreign policy mistakes."

Mistakes? A mistake is when you go to the gas station and pump regaular when you meant to pump premium. That's a mistake. 500,000+ Iraqi deaths aren't a mistake they are a foreign policy meltdown. The destabilization of Iraq wasn't a mistake it was a horrible planned action.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has not been a foreign policy mistake. It has been an arrogant and stupid response to 9/11 that has caused horrendous unrepairable damage worldwide.

To Srikanth Raghunathan.

Thank you! Nobody ever mentiones where Saddam did take his weapons from. This reinforses the idea that this war is not about justice but about money and politics.
The idea of dividing the country is condemned to fail. It would only lead to a civil war. Maybe that's what the US government is looking for: the enemy destroying himself. The work would be done and Bush could pick up the pieces and put them into his pocket.

Someone has mentioned Israel. Well, that's another example of US failed foreign policy. Why doesn't the US governmet react? Easy one...

Regards from Spain

To: Tom Wonacott, Boise, Idaho :

Actually I do not hate the USA, and I treasure my American citizen friends.. I Think the USA done many good things. My objection to the USA is mostly on two issues, Foreign Policy, and the education system. The ideas expressed in your Constitutionare are excellent. The Illumination on the Constitution is examplar in the Federal Papers. It is the politician who twists the ideas for short term gain. Neither do I have anything against Jews. my opposition is exclusively with the ZIONIST Government of Israel.

I am happy, Tom, that you never had to grow up under "occupation". I had the pleasure, as did my parents, my sister and all our relatives to appreciate the generousity of Russian Occupation Courtesy of the above mentioned Yalta Agreement. Let me tell you it is not pleasant. Bush's Survelaince program was getting close to what we had for years on end courtesy of Stalin etc.. Such destroys friendships, families, etc. Was very happy to read the Reason for Judgement of the Honorable Judge regarding the unconstitunality of this aspect of the Bush Program.

Probably the best sign of USA's Governments generousity is examplified by the Marshall Plan. This effort was completely in opposition to the Versaille Treaty with its odorous penalizing the loosing side. Mr. Keynes wrote a very interesting Essay, entitled The Aftermath of Versaille [he foretold the calamnity known as WWII, as a economic consequence of the Versaille Treaty].

I regert that in Brown Vs. Topeka Board of Education the Supreme Court of USA did not go further in its judgement by not only ruling segregation to be unconstituional , but going further to the meat of the issues, and stating in clear precise English that all students have a right to access the best educational program in accordance with their wishes, persevarence and ability, whether these oprograms are academic or vocational as long as the program is available anywhere in the State consistent with the authority of the several states regarding education. and Yes, I read the whole judgement and many more from the USA Supreme Court.

So do not presume that anyone is anti-american when their opposition is to the sometimes ill advised USA Government programs, measures or actions.

As Srikanth Raghunathan and others have said if your looking for the justicvce, follow the golden rule. It is in old western philosophy [Greek] most monotheist religions, and in mny eastern religions, such as Confucius' teqachings.

Aside from asbove I wish you and your nation aall the best [except for some of your politiciamns]

To Srikanth Raghunathan, Washington, D. C., USA :

Hi, No, I am not upset by Mr. Tom Wonacott's ideas.

I am upset about the inordinate ignorance about the world as displayed in blogs, editorials and opinion pieces by mostly Anglo-Saxon education philosophy products, such as Tom, Washington Times, some articles in WP and NY Times, the Guardian occasionally or the Times of London quite often]. That there is complete lack of knowledge even in the highest offices of a nation [unfortunately applies to Canada also] and then horrendous "measures" are taken without the slightest idea of concequences, never mind unexpected consequences is disturbing, especially from Nations which have "peace order and good government" and "by the people for the people" as the basic premise of their Constitution [Canada and USA, respectively].

I do remeber 1956 November, when the Russian Army moved into Hungary [after the Revolution] wherein Voice of America was "promising aid" and France, UK and Israel attacked Egypt. Our contention was that Russias has as much "legal Right" to reassert Hungqary's colonial Status [Curtesy of the Yalta Agreement by Stalin, Churchill and Roosewelt] as the UK had right to protect its colony, the Suez Canal.

Your government is almost the sole supporter of the last COLONIAL POWER in the world, Israel. and yet your papers, politicians and TV talking heads are all promoting Democracy, Human rights, self-determination etc. Conclusion: either they have no idea what these terms mean, or else; they are hypocrites with full knowledge of the facts, and do not giive a damn regarding any life but their own cohort. {how many children of the cited persons are in IRaq? - none or a very few, but they propose more bloodshed].

MRs. Pelosi's first indication of the steps she wishes for Congress to take are reassonable for the people of USA. IF, however, education does not improve for the masses, another Bush [a closet fascist] will soon arise, with dire consequences ofr USA nad the world.

Aside foem above, I enjoy reading your comments.

To Solomon, Canada:

"...The politicains of Canada are scared of the Israel/Jewsh lobbies [they do own a large percentage of Canadian media]..."

"...If you are so interested in the well being of Jews, then without doubt you should start a movement in USA to allow all 6 million Jews to immigrate to your country..."

"...With respect to Afganistan, even if you are right about the beginning of the war, were the USA interested in Democracy [rather than right of way for oil/gas pipelines], then it would have left Afganistan after the fall of the Taliban Govenrment. It is self-evident that Osama was just an excuse for the attack, since the USA is still in Afganistan four years after the fall of the Taliban Government..."

These are three of my favorite statements from previous postings to me. They show your irrational hatred of the USA and Israel.

1. After an eight year war against Iran, Saddam was experiencing financial hardships (a $14 billion debt to Kuwait)so he gambled and lost. Iraq may never have recognized Kuwait, but the timing of their invasion is related to economics not a sudden idea of "what is right".

2. Chemical weapons in Iraq:

"...According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[11] ]]..."

Please note that the documents mentioned MANY COUNTRIES, and regardless, under International law, the use of Chemical weapons is ILLEGAL! Did you write a letter to Saddam condemning the use of ILLEGAL chemical weapons.

3. Your statement:

"...Your presumption that you disposed of the Taliban is belied by all the NATO Generals who are still fighting in Afganistan. It is another war you will never win..."

We have discussed this issue before. You need to change your statement to read "...another war WE will never win...". Remember? Canada/NATO. Can you not figure out what your own country is doing?
Canada is also in Bosnia. Another illegal US and Canadian joint venture. Remember? NATO.

4. Please explain to me , and trust me, I love hearing your anger-driven rhetoric, why Lebanon is the US's fault? That is another issue I thought we had settled.

Under International Law, is it legal to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers? That is the reason the war started.

5. I never mentioned Al Qeada once in my posting that you are referencing. That is the same spin you are accusing Bush of. I simply meant that the WTC bombings were the straw that broke the camel's back.

On Iraq:

Was it legal to invade Iran?
Was it legal to use chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers?
Was it legal to to use chemical weapons on the Kurds?
Was it legal to invade Kuwait?
Was his repression of the Iraqi people and decimation of several hundred thousand people legal?
Was it legal to be uncooperative with UN security council inspectors which resulted in numerous resolutions requiring his cooperation?

6. We have been providing aid to the Palistinians for quite awhile. We, along with CANADA, and other countries cut off aid when Hamas became an official representative of the Palistinian government. We discussed this before also.

7. As far as what is legal or illegal, you (blinded by your own hatred of the US) only look at one side of the issue, but in our previous discussions, I have admitted the US has made foreign policy mistakes.

For example, in the case of Noriega, the US got rid of a dictator that refused to recognize the results of their elections (which voted him out).

Now Panama has full control of the Panama Canal and has a Democratic Republic form of government instead of a dictatorship. Not a bad trade off really.

You wrote:

"...For your information the basic knowledge of epistemology - in case you do not know the term:THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE; would clearly show that the negative of existence can never be proven.... {similar of the attempt to make a square from a circle — do remember PI from your math classes, the trancedental number, with endless unrepeating decimal]..."

I really enjoy reading your anti US/Israel rhetoric much more than epistomology but I am sure you are smart, just misguided. For next weeks discussion, try to think of one thing (just one) that the US has done that is positive for the world.

BobL, VA:

Touche'! You may be right. Actually, it is nobody's and everybody's. It is just something that is borne out of human decency.

Now that you have made me think (really!) about what I had blurted out, let me attempt to explain. What I meant by "fairness and justice to all" was that we should treat others just the way we would like to be treated by others. (The Golden Rule of ethics: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."). Although this was putatively declared by Jesus Christ, these Rules are almost exactly the same in several other religions. (Example: "This is the sum of the Dharma: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" - Mahabharata 5:15:17)

Oscar Wilde once famously stated that "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Hmmmm..... Is this not something we are trying to do?

By the way, personally, I supported the War in Iraq early on. (I was led to believe that the war was just, but later, I realized that I was bamboozled.) It goes to show that I am indeed adaptable!!

Amen, brother! Hey, man, I agree with you 100% on Iraq. You are not getting any complaint from me; no way!

Srikanth,

You wrote,"FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE TO ALL is the ONLY WAY to go!"

Whose concept of fairness and justice are you talking about? Yours, mine, Tom's, Salamon's?

Fairness and justice are relative ideals much like love and beauty. No two people on this planet will have the same concept of fairness and/or justice. At best we can only hopefully build consenuses of what fairness and justice mean.

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the start. It upset my perception of fairness, justness and reasonable human behavior. I thought it was a gross misuse of power and nothing good would come from it. My anti-war position has obviously become more acceptable as time has worn on. Now it appears a majority of American voters also believe the war to be unfair and unjust.

We can't bring back the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead our invasion has caused. They are gone forever along with 2,800 of our bravest men. We can't turn the clock back and undo the damage we have caused. Is this fair or just? Of course it isn't.

Before we (America) have the right to run around the world again preaching justice and fairness we have to start with atonement. We have to acknowledge our failures, pull our troops out, offer assistance to Iraq and let the rest of the world know we consider Iraq a strategic ally and any attack on a weakened Iraq (which we caused) will be considered an attack on the US.

The people of Iraq have a right to self-determination (no matter what the outcome) and we owe them as much.

At some point in the future after we have atoned for an unjust war then we can move on to fairness and justice.

Folks:

Sorry for the typos. I have attempted below to correct the typos in my previous post and repost it. -:((

Akanah, Spain:

Your points are well-taken. In fact, Saddam Hussein had an ally in the U. S. since the early eighties. (Actually, the history goes back much earlier than that, but that is irrelevant to this point.) The biggest issue that I have with our country (the U. S.) is that we are so very myopic that we fail to see the ill-effects that our actions WILL have in the future. Joe Biden (Democratic Senator from Delaware and the Presumptive Senate Foreign relations Committee's Chairman) is proposing dividing Iraq into three "semi-autonomous" regions. Come now, dividing any region into anything, based on religion and/or odeology is a VERY TERRIBLE idea (at the very best), as we have seen and learned (hopefully!) from those idiotic British and other Colonialists (yes, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Portugese included).

Tom Wonacott, Boise, ID:

I felt that I would be skewered for my statements on our reasons for invading Iraq! In my opinion, the reason for our not marching all the way to Baghdad in 1991 was that we would have lost a "really cohesive coalition" in a heartbeat. Back then, the U. N. Mandate was to "eject" Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and that was it.

I am NOT trying to defend Saddam Hussein, nor his actions. However, one has to bear in mind that even Abraham Lincoln's actions resulted in almost 3 million American deaths. Why? He was just FORCED to hold the Union together, at any cost. I can think of scenarios (not necessarily completely defensible) for Saddam Hessein's actions against secessionists and revolutionaries in his country. What about our actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about the Japanese Bioscientist who killed the Manchurians en masse in the name of testing biological weapons? Do you know what we did to that gentleman? We actually honored him by giving him U. S. Citizenship and making him the head of our Bioweapons Programs in the 1950's. Another example is Werner von Braun, who was an ardent Nazi!

My question is: what if our administration were to be "held responsible" for many civilian deaths in the conflicts, in which we have been engaged? The number of deaths does not really matter, because even one death carries the possibility of death penalty.

We can keep arguing back and forth on this, without any reasonable and pragmatic approach. Such is life! My opinion is that we have been able to prevent prosecution of us (Americans) by the rest of the world, just because we have been the leading Superpower. However, we MUST change our tack - fast! We JUST CANNOT reasonably expect to be the "lone" Superpower for much longer. Furthermore, we are losing our edge on various technologies and economic policies, much to our own detriment.

Salamon, Canada:

Whoa, are you mad! (Tom seems to have touched a raw nerve in you!) Your "facts" are well-taken, but you seem to be getting "inordinately upset"!

Lastly, FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE TO ALL is the ONLY WAY to go!

Akanah, Spain:

Your points are well-taken. In fact, Saddam Hussein had an ally in the U. S. since the early eighties. (Actually, the history goes back much earlier than that, but that is irrelevant to this point.) The biggest issue that I have with our country (the U. S.) is that we are so very myopic that we fail to see the ill-effects that our actions WILL have in the future. Joe Biden (Democratic Senator from Delaware and the Presumptive Senate Foreign relations Committee's Chairman) is proposing dividing Iraq into three "semi-autonmous" regions. Come now, dividing any region into anything, based on religion and/or odeology is a VERY TERRIBLE idea (at the very best), as we have seen and learned (hopefully!) from those idiotic British and other Colonialists (yes, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Portugese included).

Tom Wonacott, Boise, ID:

I felt that I would be skewered for my statements on our reasons for invading Iraq! In my opinion, the erasone for our not marching all the way to Baghdad in 1991 was that we would have lost a "really cohesive coalition" in a heartbeat. Back then, the U. N. Mandate was to "eject" Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and that was it.

I am NOT trying to defend Saddam Hussein, nor his actions. However, one has to bear in mind that even Abraham Lincoln's actions resulted in almost 3 million American deaths. Why? He was just FORCED to hold the Union together, at any cost. I can think of scenarios (not necessarily completely defensible) for Saddam Hessein's action against scessionists and revolutionaries in his country. What about our actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about the Japanes Biscientist who killed the Manchurians en masse in the name of testing biological weapons? Do you what we did to that gentleman? We actually honored him by giving him U. S. Citizenship and making him th ehad of our Bioweapons Programs in the 1950's.

My question is: what if our administration were to be "held responsible" for many civilian deaths in the conflicts, in which we have been engaged. The number of deaths does not really matter, because even one death carries the possibility of death penalty.

We can keep arguing back and forth on this, without any reasonable and pragmatic approach. Such is life! My opinion is that we have been able to prevent prosecution of us (Americans) by the rest of the world, just because we have been the leading Superpower. However, we MUST change our tack - fast! We JUST CANNOT reasonably expect to be the "lone" Superpower for much longer. Furthermore, we are losing our edge on various technologies and economic policies, much to our own detriment.

Salamon, Canada:

Whoa, are you mad! (Tom seems to have touched a raw nerve in you!) Your "facts" are well-taken, but you seem to be getting "inordinately upset"!

Lastly, FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE TO ALL is the ONLY WAY to go!

TO: Tom Wonacott, Boise, Idaho your posting at 11:46 today

It would be very interesting to find out what Mr. Hussein would reveal about US involvement in the Iraq-Iran war. I am sure from your above posting that you would rather not hear about the details. An intensive questioning of Mr. Rumsfeld, your special envoy for a short "visit" to Iraq during the war would be most interesting [perhaps with some "we do not torture" help for his memory]. Source of Nerve Gas, Ammunition, intelligence etc,,,

The Question of whether Kuwait was part of Basra district or not [or whether it was legitimate to draw the border as UK/US/France did is disputable, it was never answered. Nor was it ever answered if Kuwait was damaging Iraqi oil-field by overproduction on the border areas. But to the USA such minor details are irrevalent, as is the nunber of civilian deaths in IRaq, Afganistan and Lebanon [or for that matter in ex-Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, Panama, etc.].

You do not own the oil of IRaq, therefore you did not have any interest in it.

With respect to the idiotic demand of your President and others from Mr. Hussain: Prove that you do not have WMD - clearly indicates that there was no interest in any measure which would stop the USA from detouring from an ILLIGAL invasion [but then the USA never worries about international law, it is held to be a joke!]. For your information the basic knowledge of epistemology - in case you do not know the term:THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE; would clearly show that the negative of existence can never be proven.... {similar of the attempt to make a square from a circle — do remember PI from your math classes, the trancedental number, with endless unrepeating decimal].

Whereras all but fools [including the CIA] knew that Sadam dispised Al-Queda, the lame excuse in your last sentence is indicative of wishful thinking, and Bush like SPIN DOCTORING, same as MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

I would respectfully suggest to you to consider the issue of RULE OF LAW within your history, especially during the last 6 years, try USA constitutional LAw, LAws of War, UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Hague Convention and certain US supreme Court Decisions.

Your presumption that you disposed of the Taliban is belied by all the NATO Generals who are still fighting in Afganistan. It is another war you will never win.

Perhaps after so educating yourself, you will demand that your Government follow the LAW and pay reparation payments to all civilians and nations where the USA broke the law - suggestions: Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afganistan, Ex-Yugoslavia, Chile, Nicaragua, Granada, Panama, etc...

Aswide from the above, I find your posting quite reasonable. Unfortuante that you swallowed USA Propaganda with respect to Iraq.

To Srikanth Raghunathan:

"Like it, or not, that was PRECISLEY why we went into Iraq. As much as I would like to believe otherwise, oil is THE reason for our involvement..."

I knew I was opening up a can of worms when I made the original statement. I am not so naive to believe that the US interest in the Middle East is not related to oil. Of course it is and we will protect our interest.

The first Gulf war is a good example. We could not afford to let Saddam, essentially, double his reserves by controlling Kuwait's oil, and at the same time threaten Saudi Arabia's oil supply, which contributes a much higher percentage to the US than Iraq (ever did). The world condemned Iraq's actions also (UN, Arabs...) and I'm more than a little skeptical that it was on humanitarian grounds (although that is the way it is portrayed). Another way to put that is the "world" was only too happy to see the US eject Saddam from Kuwait's oil (oh, and by the way, we can liberate the Kuwatis too).

1. Many of the same charactors that led the war the Gulf War are in power today. How easy would it have been to continue into Baghdad in 1991 especially if Iraqi oil was the motive?

Dick Cheney was Seceretary of Defense during the Gulf War. What follows is an interesting quote from Cheney:

'...I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[13]..."

Most people wish he had remembered what he said!

2. Look at all the events surrounding Iraq that were in place before we invaded. The Gulf War, Saddam's responsibility for the death of 1-2 million people, the use of WMD's on the Kurds and the Iranians, the umteen UN resolutions condemning Iraq for refusing to cooperate with the inspectors, the belief by most everyone in the world that Saddam still had WMD's including Clinton, Carey etc., the attack on the World Trade Center and the relative ease with which we disposed of the Taliban in Afghanistan (we certainly couldn't have invaded if we were bogged down in Afghanistan).

THE US DIDN'T CONSPIRE TO FORM IRAQ'S HISTORY OR THE ATTACK ON THE WTC, BUT WE SURELY NEEDED BOTH TO INVADE.

Conspiracy theories abound such as "he did it for Daddy" which are absurd. Your opinion (oil) is shared by, probably, 95%(+) of the world, which puts me in the minority on this issue, but as I mentioned to Akana of Spain, the attack on the World Trade Center (primarily) drove the invasion, not oil.

To Akanah, Spain:

No, absolutely no hard feelings, in fact, I appreciate your perspective, and hope to hear more in the future.

gracias,

Tom

To Tom,

I didn't say that Zapatero was favored to win the elections, I said that Aznar's victory was not so clear. Nobody knew who were about to win elections. Al Qaeda just attacked a country coz our soldiers were there. Even more, Zapatero withdrawed our troops several months later after elections.
"I have read many articles in US newspapers that use Spain as an example of caving in to terrorism" Of course you have. You will only read this kind of articles in your papers and in British ones, maybe in Portuguese's. But that's all. You supported this war, so the papers talks against those who don't do it.
Relationships between the US and Spain haven't been too good during Socialist periods coz you mix Socialism with Comunism, so we never do the right thing for you.
Saddan has killed innocent people, ok, that's true. But, who did give him the weapons? Who was his close friend in the 90s?
UN weapon inspectors did NOT find anything. Bush and Blair have admited that, it only remainds Aznar, who's too proud to admit he was wrong. Why sending inspectors if we don't hear them?
Spanish troops are in Bosnia and Afghanistan but doing humanitarian works. I'm not going back to Vietnam, move on, that was 30 years ago.
"Yes, many people believe what you believe about US intentions in Iraq, but the last time I checked, we have a working democracy, so they are free to question Bush's motives just like you." ...that's what I said, so, what?
"Hussein was responsible for the deaths of an estimated one to two million people. Is that enough dead (innocent) people for you? " Sure! Saddan is to be blamed, there's no doubt about that. I'm NOT deffending him. What kind of monster do you think I am? Where are talking about the reasons that took the US go into war. Even more, I don't believe in death penalty, I am sure that living in a prision for the rest of his life is a bigger punishment.
Going back to Spain and our troops. We did NOT withdraw our soldiers coz of the bombs in Madrid. We withdrawed (sorry, it is regular o irregular?)them coz they were sent without our agreement.
You support the war, ok, I respect that, as you've said there's a working democracy. You have your motives, but we have ours. We don't see the invasion with you perspective. Let's put an end to this argue coz we're going nowhere. As someone told me in a post, we maybe coincide in another post. So, no hard feelings.
Once again, I invite you to visit my country, turists are very welcome here.

Saludos desde EspaÒa.

The Democrats have taken the house and Senate. George Will in the Wash Post correctly observes that the American people have punished the Republicans for having been excessive—just as the Democrats were punished in the '90's for having been excessive in their own way. The question is whether the Democrats will make the same mistake they made in the 90's leading to another bout of Republican excessiveness or if a middle way which is not stasis, denial of contradiction, sterility, etc. can be created.

On a different note, and to offer not a recommendation to congress but simply my latest thoughts on world affairs for the consideration of all, I have been reading Noam Chomsky's political writings with great interest. I was greatly concerned to read that the United States has committed—and is still committing—a great number of atrocities in its establishment of truth, justice, liberty, democracy, human rights, etc. In other words, according to Chomsky the U.S. was virtually a mirror image of the Soviet Union in its disregard for human life, and in general Chomsky brings to new meaning the observation that democracy is the worst system except for all the others.

Chomsky himself seems to believe all this bloodshed has been unnecessary and seems to believe in some sort of spontaneous libertarian/socialistic solution which makes a way between ideologies of right and left. I hope he is correct, because if not, what we have to look forward to is the imperfections of the best political systems thrust in our faces by continual improvements in communications technology—not to mention the imperfections of all the other political systems.

In other words, what we have are nations which have not at all even remotely approximated the morality of great religious leaders such as Jesus, Buddha, Confucious, Martin Luther King, etc. suddenly becoming aware by communications technology just how monstrous they are—as if a sudden and dramatic impact of conscience on nations which really have had no conscience (only ideals, assertions of nobility) before.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that what if it has been not only necessary to commit atrocities in the name of all the most advanced civilizations have to offer, atrocities have to continue to be committed because that is necessary to civilization's advancement—and here we are in the age when by communications technology all the sordid details are right there for the perusal of anyone...kind of like everyone at the crime scene looking at the body or right there in the emergency room of the hospital except...we all are increasingly responsible (become aware of) the bloodshed.

What does it mean when not only are nations incapable of disguising their atrocities, they cannot prevent them from occuring because there really is no other way to arrive at the higher orders we speak of when we say "democracy", "freedom", etc.?

To perhaps put it as plainly as possible, nations have been lagging far behind the morality put forth by the best individuals among us, and here we are now with dramatically increased communications technology shoving all the sordidness of nations in our faces...

The U.S. is certainly taking it on the nose. But what if we are becoming dramatically aware of the atrocities before nations can keep preventing themselves from horrors?

The collapse of all ideology, propaganda, religious cover, etc. can be spoken of as nothing more than that...

What are we going to do when there is no cloak for our national actions and yet precisely because nations are so low morally the horrifying actions will continue?

A note of hope: in such an age perhaps we can expect truly wise—even divine—men such as never before. People speak of certain ages bringing forth certain types of men (an age of conquerors, an age of painters, playwrights, etc.). Perhaps the coming age will bring forth men to rival Confucious, Socrates, the Buddha,—even Jesus. Not the end of the world and the confirmation of religious teachings but the outpouring of truly great moralists to redeem us and guide the way?

A note of hope....

To Akanah, Spain:

If Zapatero was favored to win the election and promised to get out of Iraq, then why did Al Qeada attack Spain? To punish Spain for their service in Iraq? If that is the case then Zapatero should have stayed in Iraq long enough to give the appearance that Spain would not buckle to terrorism, instead he gave Al Qeada exactly what they wanted.

I have read many articles in US newspapers that use Spain as an example of caving in to terrorism (PERCEPTION).

The US attacked Iraq because the US and most of the rest of the world believed Iraq had weapons of mass distruction. Because of 911, the US believed that the development of WMD's by Iraq constituted a threat to the US. Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and many UN security council resolutions were passed condemning Iraq's refusal to cooperate. Saddam just needed to cooperate.

I personally believe that Bush also wanted to send a message to the countries in the Middle East that support terrorism including Iran and Syria. Not all of what the US does is right, but this was not done for oil. Bush had 911 on his mind.

Yes, many people believe what you believe about US intentions in Iraq, but the last time I checked, we have a working democracy, so they are free to question Bush's motives just like you.

Between the wars in Kuwait and Iran in which Iraq was the aggressor, and the killing of his own people including the use of WMD's on the Kurds and Iranians, Hussein was responsible for the deaths of an estimated one to two million people. Is that enough dead (innocent) people for you? The US did not attack for humanitarian reasons, but could have made a case for it.

The US does not always go to war for oil. Some examples include Bosnia (Humanitarian) and Afghanistan, or going back further, South Korea and Viet Nam where ideology were the principal reasons. Note that as a member of NATO, Spain is, currently, deployed in Afghanistan and Bosnia.

daniel, Arlington, VA: