My opinion on what's happening in Iraq

[Kyara]

Guys, it's gonna be a real pleasure for me to have your opinions on what's happening between Iraq and the US for I wanna know if it's only us who suffer with our brothers and sisters there ...
When Iraq occupied Kuwait first, I agree that they made a mistake and a very big one! But keeping in mind that the mistake was made by the government not the people and nor the children who are suffering from it until now ...
If Kuwait suffered from war for a year, then Iraqi's have been suffering for alost ten years now because of a mistake their government made ... Food and medicine wasn't allowed to their country and it was surrounded by forces for all this time ... Only some intruders claiming that Iraqis possess dangerous weapons while their stores had been investigated and emptied by the United Nations and by the US for many times ...
Whereas Israelians get to kill as much Palestinians as they like and possess as many weapons as they want, Islamic countries don't even have the right to own weapons for defence?! If the US so called president really wants to maintain peace then why doesn't he treat Israel the same way he treats Iraq? Why doesn't he care when tens and hundreds of Palestinian children and elders are killed everyday?! When you see this unjustice, do you ever think again that this person cares for peace in the world? What kind of a monster would start war on a country that already suffers and that's already dying of diseases and lack of food? What kind of a person would look for peace by provoking war? Do you guys think that this is a solution?
I don't see any peace here ...
And I don't see any justice ...

[Freedom1]

Kyara, we do care. "supporting" Palestine is like walking on egg shells in the U.S. It doesnt take much for the "intellegensia" ( and I use that word quite loosely ) to label one anti-Semitic if you show even objectivity on the issue.

trust me, it's coming. The CIA knows that Isreal is a HUGE achilles heel to us Americans, that fact is undeniable. The problem becomes having the political fortitude to express this as a part of American foreign policy, due to domestic political concerns.

Notice how Clinton made several overtures along these lines just as he was leaving office. Nothing ever came of them, nor did he pursuee it, likely from pressure from the vice-president's re-election council.

Same weak-kneed political pressure that caused them not to pursue Saddam or Al-Q'aida until we HAD to.

Balls is not a prerequisite for leadership in the States, unfortuntatley.

But this President, President Bush, does indeed have those.

Lets see if he can muscle around Sharon. I think he can. The "end game" in U.S. Middle East policy is far from over.

[cougar2003]

I'm not from U.S.A. and Israel, and I'm not from Iraq too.
I don't like the use of the military forces to solv international problems. But I can't admit that Iraq ( Saddan Iraq) has the same right to have weapons than a democratic nation. The big difference is this, israel is a democratic country were people can choose theyr politicians so theyr laws. Palestine has the right to be free end indipendent but this is a different thing. Is not possible to say Iraq has the same right from Palestine. People from Iraq has the same rights froma the other people all over the world. Iraq like nation could have the right to be armed wen democracy will grow up.
We must fight ( in the democratic sense ) for a free palestine, but we can't admit that nations like Iraq ( Saddam Iraq )has the right to be armed.

[Volodya987]

Why? If English people can have weapons of mass destruction, say an atom bomb, so can Arabs. The Bengladeshis, the Red Indians, and white Indians, and blue Indians, and the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, and Japan, they can have one too. What about
The Republic of India, Azerbaidzan, The Republic of Congo and Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela, well he can have several. What about Albania? Don't you think they'll be lonely without one. Peru? Guetamala? Wales? What about Austria? or Norway? England herself or Spain? Nigeria?
Volodya987

[CameoJoey]

HiYa,

I am missing the middle paragraph of the first section of remedial reading material for this site.

CameoJoey

[Volodya987]

Epsilon, [Stigma,] Zeta, Eta, Theta
Volodya987

[Freedom1]

Volodya, we are not a modern world when it comes to politics. Ego still dominates our politcal ( and other pscyhe), and ego does serve to destroy, hate, malice, as well as love.

Good question. What gives the U.S. , Russia, etc the right to have these arms? And further, why have they showed some restraint ( other than Nagasaki) during the Cold War?

Clearly a good part of the answer is the strategy of mutually assured destruction. With each others hands on each other throats, who really wants to squeeze too hard?

But, this MAD strategy doesnt work with state-less terrorists and it doesnt work with government who have no concern for their people, does it?

What if the Islamic terrorist had unassed a nuke in NYC. Not that difficult to do I read. Who would we retaliate against? A shadow, a ghost? Pick a city, any city in the Islamic world.

Likely in the halls of the intelligence community, that day was or is coming. Hell, I wrote an essay about it in college circa 1983!

Anyway, likely choice was Bagdad. And I would urge you to give it some time. My bet is that 2-3 years down the line, Iraq is again billed as the "Modern Arab Republic" as it was in the 1960's before the facist Ba'ath party took control.

LET THE PEOPLE RULE!