The Iraq Thread

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 10 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to be cynical, but yes, yes we can have it both ways. Many Americans felt that the WMD thing was merely a good excuse to finish what we started in '91, so they will in turn accept multiple objectives and causes for the war. And, as I've told you before, the only people that really have a shot at reversing this current policy are the American people; as you can see, the American people seem to be just fine with this war of multi-faceted causes.<span id='postcolor'>

Well then, wouldn't it be right for the American people to bear responsibility for their choices? Let's say in the future there's a terrorist attack on the US soil, happening as a direct result of this current war. Perpetrated by a Saddam loyalist, perhaps. Or a person who lost his family to an American bomb. This attack will result in massive civilian casualties. You'll say it's a heinos and barbaric act, he'll say that he's merely striking at the people who made the war against his country possible by voting for Bush and supporting this war in the polls. Disturbing picture, isn't it?

BTW, let's say the abovementioned person attacks the White House with the aim of killing your President. Can he call it an attack on a "leadership target"? ... think about it ...

Edit: Crap, now I've said all the wrong "flag" words in one post. I bet NSA's forwarding this to the Secret Service as we type...

[bn880 5]

Yeah, so I think the minorities are over represented by 200% or so, is it not? Anyway, it's not a conscript army so that's not a huge issue.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If anything, what's going throught the minds of most Iraqis in Baghdad is: I think the U.S. may be the lesser of two evils, so let's wait and see.

This is probably the best realistic case scenario.<span id='postcolor'>

yup.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,00:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure there are a lot of Afghanis who would disagree with you.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure you would find some afghanis that would disagree with that - that is - the ones living withing a 5 km radius of Kabul. The others live under pretty bad conditions - maybe as bad as before the Taliban came to power. Don't forget that the ones ruling over most of Afghanistan are the same people that made people welcome the taliban rule in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt the conditions are as bad as when they were under the Taliban.

Examples:

Women aren't being brutally beaten and executed for violating the "law".

Children are attending school once again.

Many of them are getting food now.

Weapons caches are being destroyed, and militias disbanded.

Music is allowed to be played again, and children to play and dance.

So: Do I think things are perfect in Afghanistan?

No, but they are better.

Do I think we are doing all we can for the Afghanis?

No, I don't. I think we can do, and give more than we have.

Do I think things are going to be instantly better after 25 years of anarchy in Afghanistan?

No, I'm a bit more realistic in my expectations. I think it will take 5-10 years to peacefully disarm the Afghanis and get a viable government working.

Do I think this will actually happen?

Yes, I do. The American people are committed to the Afghanis like it or not.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 10 2003,01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well then, wouldn't it be right for the American people to bear responsibility for their choices?<span id='postcolor'>

same question goes to the other side too.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,01:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt the conditions are as bad as when they were under the Taliban.<span id='postcolor'>

Pre-Taliban conditions in Afghanistan were worse then the oppression by the Talibans. They kept the war lords in place and stopped them from robbing, raping and pilliging. It's all back now. The only part under real UN administration control is a part of Kabul.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I do. The American people are committed to the Afghanis like it or not.<span id='postcolor'>

You are sadly mistaken there. You have pulled out most of your troops and continue to do so. The UN is trying to manage the mess but not very successfuly due to lack of resources. USA has no more interest in Afghanistan except for tracking down the few remaining AQ terrorist that are still there.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, so I think the minorities are over represented by 200% or so, is it not?  Anyway, it's not a conscript army so that's not a huge issue.<span id='postcolor'>

Not really. If anything, some minorities are underrepresented. Hispanics are the largest minority in the US (roughly 25% of the population, give or take), yet there is not nearly that much in the military. Blacks, who are at around 20% in America, are also fairly equally represented. If anything, there are too many whites and not enough minorities in the military lol- [tasteless joke]perhaps we need some affirmative action drafting?[/tasteless joke] Or not. But, as you say, the US military is all volunteer, so it doesn't matter anyhow. Just thought I'd post those numbers, as there seemed to be a question as to the actual numbers.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really, Coaltion/Allies its semantics.  We have people from the oppressed countries fighting on our side now, just the same as we did then.<span id='postcolor'>

You are making a big mistake by comparing this situation to WW2. If anything, the coalition is similar to the axis powers not the allies. You are occupying another country that hasn't done anything to you. You are the agressors, not the defenders.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, we aren't exactly ruled by a brutal, murdering dictator now are we? That seems more like Saddam to me(Who, along with his Fedayeen, parallels Hitler and the SS quite nicely if you ask me). We also didn't invade Iraq to incorporate them into our reich. We invaded to free them from oppression and to rid them of their weapons. I think my analogy is much more credible than yours. I don't think the Poles and the French greeted the SS or the Wehrmacht with the same enthusiasm the Iraqis are greeting the Coalition with, but I could be wrong.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If anything, what's going throught the minds of most Iraqis in Baghdad is: I think the U.S. may be the lesser of two evils, so let's wait and see.

This is probably the best realistic case scenario.<span id='postcolor'>

I would tend to agree with you that the majority of the Iraqis feel exactly this way. However, I think there is an increasing tide turning towards gratitude for the Coalition's actions. I think if we can manage to get the timing right and turn rule of Iraq back over to the Iraqis ASAP, then this feeling will only grow.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,01:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I do.  The American people are committed to the Afghanis like it or not.<span id='postcolor'>

You are sadly mistaken there. You have pulled out most of your troops and continue to do so. The UN is trying to manage the mess but not very successfuly due to lack of resources. USA has no more interest in Afghanistan except for tracking down the few remaining AQ terrorist that are still there.<span id='postcolor'>

so what's the problem? one minute ppl are complaining that US has so many grasp on Afghanistan, the next minute there's erosion in US's interest?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 10 2003,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't the U.S. using former Iraqi citizens and military officers to help with translations, and communication?

And the Kurdish fighters in the north?

<span id='postcolor'>

There's a huge difference with that! The iraqi's involved in operations against Saddam are not even of marginal substance. They are also mainly members of the kurdish clans - which by the way have been fighting Saddam for years. Do you really believe the kurds are representative for all of Iraq's population?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Backed and funded heavily by America:

Allies - check

Coalition - check<span id='postcolor'>

True enough, but you seem to forget that the effort was combined.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Involving men and women from the independent and 'occupied' nation:

Allies - check

Coalition - check<span id='postcolor'>

A ridiculous claim. Again, the kurds are not representative of the iraqi population. Actually, they are a minority. Besides, the kurdish area are enjoying - and have been enjoying autonomyfor almost 10 years now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Democracies fighting against a despotic regime:

Alies - check

Coalition - check.<span id='postcolor'>

Motives are dubious at best. Not so during WWII. Or does that mean US will go to war with the rest of the bunch any time - even their undemocratic and oppresive allies in the same region?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I admit the Allies and the Coalition have a world of differences between them, but they have a world of similarities, as well.<span id='postcolor'>

Not so, the kurds are looking after their own business. Indipendence and oilreserves in the north of Iraq. They are as representative of the iraqi population as the indigenous indians of US are of the US of A.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,01:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Poles and the French greeted the SS or the Wehrmacht with the same enthusiasm the Iraqis are greeting the Coalition with, but I could be wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes actually they did, but they didn't remain very popular for long.

You can twist and turn it however you like but the Anglo-American forces attacked another country without being threatened in any way. It's a war of agression which is the same thing what Hitler did to Poland and what Saddam did to Kuwait. The fact that Saddam is (was) a bloody dictator is not in any way correlated to that fact.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,018)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I do.  The American people are committed to the Afghanis like it or not.<span id='postcolor'>

You are sadly mistaken there. You have pulled out most of your troops and continue to do so. The UN is trying to manage the mess but not very successfuly due to lack of resources. USA has no more interest in Afghanistan except for tracking down the few remaining AQ terrorist that are still there.<span id='postcolor'>

so what's the problem? one minute ppl are complaining that US has so many grasp on Afghanistan, the next minute there's erosion in US's interest?<span id='postcolor'>

Ralph, meet Mr. double-standard. Double-standard, this is my good friend Ralph. Y'all get acquainted, I'm going to go spike the punch bowl

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what's the problem? one minute ppl are complaining that US has so many grasp on Afghanistan, the next minute there's erosion in US's interest?<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is the attitude of "We bomb you and then we don't give a fuck about you." Either you get involved properly and provide the promised goods or you don't get involved in the first place. The objections are that USA starts bombing in the first place. That doesn't make it ok to pull out after the bombing.

Fortunately (or not) Iraq has oil and is of strategic importance so I think more effort will be put into rebuilding the infrastructure then it was in Afghanistan.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what's the problem? one minute ppl are complaining that US has so many grasp on Afghanistan, the next minute there's erosion in US's interest?<span id='postcolor'>

The point is that the US did what it wanted in Afghanistan (destroyed Al-Qaida, removal of Taliban was just a side effect) and now is moving to greener pastures. Afghanistan, however, is fast sliding back into anarchy and, most likely, Taliban rule. So the Afghan people got bombed and got an extra dose of civil disruption and are (probably) going to end up exactly where they started, with Taliban. How's that in their interest?

edit: as Denoir said 2 minutes earlier ^

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,018)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Poles and the French greeted the SS or the Wehrmacht with the same enthusiasm the Iraqis are greeting the Coalition with, but I could be wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes actually they did, but they didn't remain very popular for long.

You can twist and turn it however you like but the Anglo-American forces attacked another country without being threatened in any way. It's a war of agression which is the same thing what Hitler did to Poland and what Saddam did to Kuwait. The fact that Saddam is (was) a bloody dictator is not in any way correlated to that fact.<span id='postcolor'>

Forgive me, but I don't think I'm doing as much twisting and turning as you are. Wars of aggression are fought to seize. Seizure of resources, seizure of territory, even seizure of a people. We didn't fight to seize, we fought to rid. There's a pretty friggin huge difference between the two that I think you are conveniently ignoring.

As far as Afghanistan, you are attacking your own argument with your example. If it was a "neocolonialist" action, why would the U.S, pull out and try and hand it off to the U.N.? I think you just gave a better example than I could, that U.S. intentions there were something other than grabbing territory or resources. Of course it hasn't happened yet, But I think you will see the same holds true for Iraq.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is the attitude of "We bomb you and then we don't give a fuck about you." Either you get involved properly and provide the promised goods or you don't get involved in the first place. The objections are that USA starts bombing in the first place. That doesn't make it ok to pull out after the bombing.<span id='postcolor'>

and did opposition at that time have a great idea on how to have OBL under control without resorting to war? At that time, most of the world gave silent approval for US's action since it was obvious that Taliban was not going to hand OBL. and it was also obvious that OBL was behind the 9-11.

it is unfortunate that military action had to be taken, but in no way it was an action that should not been taken.

one of the comments during those days were that US did not care about USSR's incursion into Afghanistan, and US is NOW(back then) showing interest.(of course noone gives a damn about those who make such arguments since CIA was involved. )

the problem is also with the attitude of "US's occupation any longer period shows signs of US's greed." but as soon as US (alledgely) leaves Afghanistan alone a little more, ppl go, "You don't give a damn as soon as you get what you want."

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Forgive me, but I don't think I'm doing as much twisting and turning as you are.  Wars of aggression are fought to seize.  Seizure of resources, seizure of territory, even seizure of a people.  We didn't fight to seize, we fought to rid.  There's a pretty friggin huge difference between the two that I think you are conveniently ignoring.

As far as Afghanistan, you are attacking your own argument with your example.  If it was a "neocolonialist" action, why would the U.S, pull out and try and hand it off to the U.N.?  I think you just gave a better example than I could, that U.S. intentions there were something other than grabbing territory or resources.  Of course it hasn't happened yet, But I think you will see the same holds true for Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you be so naíve? I guess it was just a total accident that the dictator that you had to "get rid of" and the people to be "liberated" were sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves? I mean, if you want to fight evil dictators, why not do it sub-saharan Africa?

As for Afghanistan, read the posts above...

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and if US intervened back then, would world give a damn? did any other nations have great concern about it and acted upon? i don't think so.<span id='postcolor'>

Well no - you are right! But the brits and US in particular had no time to waste on the poor kurds as you were busy selling arms and chemical plants to Saddam.

Norway and Sweden didn't do much other than protest against the murdering - apart from restraining themselves from selling weapons to Saddam. It's not much - but it's better than nothing!

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 10 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How can you be so naíve? I guess it was just a total accident that the dictator that you had to "get rid of" and the people to be "liberated" were sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves? I mean, if you want to fight evil dictators, why not do it sub-saharan Africa?

As for Afghanistan, read the posts above...<span id='postcolor'>

and what happened as soon as US showed interest in Africa? Critics say US should not do it.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 10 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How can you be so naíve? I guess it was just a total accident that the dictator that you had to "get rid of" and the people to be "liberated" were sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves? I mean, if you want to fight evil dictators, why not do it sub-saharan Africa?

As for Afghanistan, read the posts above...<span id='postcolor'>

and what happened as soon as US showed interest in Africa? Critics say US should not do it.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe US should reconsider it's willingness to use force all the time. Maybe there are other options?

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 10 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Forgive me, but I don't think I'm doing as much twisting and turning as you are.  Wars of aggression are fought to seize.  Seizure of resources, seizure of territory, even seizure of a people.  We didn't fight to seize, we fought to rid.  There's a pretty friggin huge difference between the two that I think you are conveniently ignoring.

As far as Afghanistan, you are attacking your own argument with your example.  If it was a "neocolonialist" action, why would the U.S, pull out and try and hand it off to the U.N.?  I think you just gave a better example than I could, that U.S. intentions there were something other than grabbing territory or resources.  Of course it hasn't happened yet, But I think you will see the same holds true for Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you be so naíve? I guess it was just a total accident that the dictator that you had to "get rid of" and the people to be "liberated" were sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves? I mean, if you want to fight evil dictators, why not do it sub-saharan Africa?

As for Afghanistan, read the posts above...<span id='postcolor'>

I also don't think it was a coincidence that Iraq is the most secular of Arab nations and the one judged most likely to sustain a viable democracy.  Couple that with the fact that the Saudis are becoming more extremist and were in large part the participants in 9-11, and I think that makes Iraq a prime candidate for attempting to stabilize the middle east, while at the same time ridding it of one of its most dangerous and brutal dictators.  We can no longer trust the Saudis, and its distasteful for us to do so, given the nature of their backwards sliding regime, we needed to find a viable alternative, restore stability to the region and use Iraq as the springboard for solving the Palestinian/Israeli crisis.  Also, Iran is on the verge of a secular revolution given that 80% of the population is under 25, and is not all that enchanted with the Ayatollah.  What do you think is going to happen there when they glance across their border and see a free and prosperous Iraq?  So no, I'm not naive, just a bit more farsighted than you seem to be.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe US should reconsider it's willingness to use force all the time. Maybe there are other options?<span id='postcolor'>

which methods i'm sure the critics can apply to end the dictatorship right now. so why isn't other industrial nations use non-militaristic approach to end dictatorship in sub-Saharan Africa?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and did opposition at that time have a great idea on how to have OBL under control without resorting to war? At that time, most of the world gave silent approval for US's action since it was obvious that Taliban was not going to hand OBL. and it was also obvious that OBL was behind the 9-11.<span id='postcolor'>

Not silent approval. We participated! This was all out of sympathy over 11/9.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">with the attitude of "US's occupation any longer period shows signs of US's greed." but as soon as US (alledgely) leaves Afghanistan alone a little more, ppl go, "You don't give a damn as soon as you get what you want."<span id='postcolor'>

Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different situations. Afghanistan was a smash and grab operation. The country was left in a mess.

Iraq on the other hand is the exact opposite. USA could not care less about a two bit dictator like Saddam. There are plenty of those in the world that USA activly supports (Venezuela somebody?). The Iraq war is a neocolonial effort, motivated not only by its oil but about getting a new ally in a strategically important region. That's why USA has no desire for the UN to pull the strings on this one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wars of aggression are fought to seize.  Seizure of resources, seizure of territory, even seizure of a people.  We didn't fight to seize, we fought to rid.<span id='postcolor'>

See above. You did indeed fight to seize. For one the natural resources (can be debated) but also creating an ally (or puppet regime if you wish) in the area.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What do you think is going to happen there when they glance across their border and see a free and prosperous Iraq? <span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes, it was out of support for the war these kids threw Molotov cocktails at the British embassy yesterday.

G'd night folks.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe US should reconsider it's willingness to use force all the time. Maybe there are other options?<span id='postcolor'>

which methods i'm sure the critics can apply to end the dictatorship right now. so why isn't other industrial nations use non-militaristic approach to end dictatorship in sub-Saharan Africa?<span id='postcolor'>

Ask ANC about all the economic support they got from industrialized nations. You would be surprised - I promise!