Pukko

OOOhhhhhh I wonder which the 'believeing that human behaviour is primary biologically programmed' gene is? Yes, I'm rather much on the social science side: that we primary are social constructions

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 02 2003,02:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This brings me to an interesting question that I want to ask the people opposing the war. Do you wish USA to suceed in its invasion of Iraq or would you rather see Iraq defending itself successfully?<span id='postcolor'> I will refer to my post on this page here: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=3435 If the USA goes in with UN approval (pint 3 in that post) I really hopes that everything goes perfectly well; no big amounts of civilian casaulties, no new 'highway of death', a better leadership of Iraq established and no further spread of the conflict in the middle east. Because then all of the world will be 'equally' responsible for what happens. I just hope that it do not make the Bush administration confident enough to continue its 'crusade against the evil' in other nations. I do not in any case think that Iraq has much to put up against an US invasion - and therefore that the invasion in it self could not really 'fail'. If the USA goes in alone (read point 4 in my older post), I hope for the future of our planet that the USA will not 'succeed'. If USA in some mysterious way would be able to - after the invasion that could hardly fail in it self - make it all look good (little collateral damage or unneccesary slaughter, no spread of the conflict and a quick positive replacement of Saddam), and thereby 'eliminating' the UN and the opposing nations - it would be the start of a new and dark era of our history. On short term it would all look good, but as all nations now are 'on their own', preemptive attacks are perfectly legitime, USA would continue the 'crusade against evil' and no UN is around to solve conflicts - it would soon be global chaos (also called WW3). But if the USA would be considered to fail (lots of collateral damage, unnecessary slaughter, widespread conflict and failed replacement of Saddam + both home & global opinion against the war), then the UN would survive...... errm..... I dont really think there would be much positive stuff anyway, because the USA would be 'humiliated' and - read point 2 in the post. Well, really, I think the whole situation is a failure, and all other options than the 1:st point (everyone happy) would lead to bad consequences in the long run. A faliure if USA goes in alone without UN approval, or if USA leaves in shame without invading (point 2), then the bad consequenses could be limited to USA alone (except for all people that would die in the conflict & of increased terrorism in the first case) - buts its quite unlikely that they would. The world is still under great US influence, and a negative development in the US would have more than 'US frustration warmongering' consequenses for the rest of the world. The EU might be enough independent of USA in the short future to avoid a major depression, but other regions might not... So to counclude: I would be happy if point 1 came true, would accept it if point 3 came true, would be worried if point 2 came true, and furious if point 4 came true....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 27 2003,19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saw this on the CSMonitor, thought it was pretty interesting. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If antiwar protesters succeed To publish an unsigned opinion piece is an exception to the Monitor's policy. But the views expressed here, if put with a name, could endanger the writer's extended family in Baghdad. The author - known to Monitor staff - was born and raised in Iraq. Now a US citizen with a business that requires extensive world travel, the author is in frequent touch with the Iraqi diaspora but is not connected with organized opposition to Saddam Hussein. Since Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, started warning that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell," the retort that has been flying around Iraqi exiles' websites is, "Good! We'd like to get out!" It got me wondering: What if you antiwar protesters and politicians succeed in stopping a US-led war to change the regime in Baghdad? What then will you do? Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush? Will you demand that the United Nations send human rights inspectors to Iraq? Or are you only interested in weapons of "mass destruction" inspections, not of "mass torture" practices? Will you also insist that such human rights inspectors be given time to discover Hussein's secret prisons and coercion as you do for the weapons inspectors? Or will you simply accept a "clean bill of health" if you can't find the thousands of buried corpses? Will you pressure your own countries to host millions more Iraqi refugees (estimated now at 4 million) fleeing Hussein's brutality?Or will you prefer they stay in bondage? Will you vigorously demand an international tribunal to indict Hussein's regime for crimes against humanity? Or will you simply dismiss him as "another" dictator of a "sovereign" country? Will you question why Hussein builds lavish palaces while his people are suffering? Or will you simply blame it all on UN sanctions and US "hegemony?" Will you decry the hypocritical oil and arms commerce of France, Germany, Russia, and China with the butcher of Baghdad? Or are you only against US interests in Iraqi oil? Will you expose ethnic cleansing of native Iraqi non-Arabs (Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkomens), non-Sunni-Muslims (Shiite), and non-Muslims (Christians, Mandaens, Yezidis)? Or are these not equivalent to the cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars? Will you show concern about the brutal silencing of the "Iraqi street"? Or are you only worried about the orchestrated noises of "Arab and Islamist streets" outside Iraq? Will you hear the cries of Iraqis executed in acid tanks in Baghdad? the Iraqi women raped in front of their husbands and fathers to extract confessions? Or of children tortured in front of their parents? Or of families billed for the bullets used to execute military "deserters" in front of their own homes? No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush. Please, prove me wrong<span id='postcolor'> http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html<span id='postcolor'> Remembered that I posted this a while ago: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=2830 My second post there is the most relevant in this case. How we probably care more about what our 'western equals' do, than what those (somewhere back in our heads) 'uncivilized, lazy, stupid poor bastards' do - we dont understand them anyway, right? So why care? (those latest comments was indeed sarcasms, but they are still around in our 'not as pure as we like to think' western thinking). But I can tell you that I personally have never been as furious & engaged about any international happening in my 28 years long life, as I have been in US international politics since 9/11. They very much seems to be about increasing the 'terrorist threat' instead of decreasing it - and the benefits of that you can find in my other posts; if its not the current US administration is probably the most incompetent the world has ever seen. I have never participated in demonstrations before - but on feb. 15 I and many others fond reason to do it. Remember - it was the biggest demonstration since the Vietnam war - and the biggest ever in peacetime. I'm a little tired, dont know if it made sense at all.. Good night

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 26 2003,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have to say it.You just said it.I feel the same way also.Here's what i agree with.Which is the truth. US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in. Unfortunately they did. So what happens when there is no war,The US soldiers go home.Does iraq do the same crap they did before ? I mean i think the US spent a little too many billions to do the war build up again. But if i was president and didn't get my way i would tell those countries that veto it ,that when iraq steps outta line again they pay the money ,they pay with the lives.<span id='postcolor'> As far as I can see, all possible ways from here (well actually from last summer) leads to big problems (except for alternative 1, I'm sorry for coming up with new conclusions as I write). 1. USA goes home, taking credit for scaring Saddam to cooperate with the UN. I am personally quite sure that the UN have the possibility to continue 'working' with Saddam's Iraq; maybe even to start working on a human rights program. Its all a matter of doing it the right way (and no, I cannot tell you what is the right way, but pay me fulltime for 2 years research and I might come up with some good alternatives ), there are certainly ways to gain even Saddams goodwill. In this case its all a matter of how much credit the USA is able to take. If the US goes away as the 'heroes' again, I cant see much problems for any part actually (yes, I changed my mind as I wrote this). The opposing nations will take credit, the UN will take credit, the US will take credit - it will be remembered as a 'diplomatic masterpiece'. The only problem is the future Iraq - but as I said I believe there is big potential for the better here too; if we just can earn Saddams respect and cooperation (possible through a wide range of 'soft ways' ). And one Ãœber-success that will come from it: Muslim fundamental terrorists will gain much less support in crushing the 'evil west'. This whole conflict is a clash of civilizations, and if we bring them closer together, well, we will be able to live in peace forever And as I write I come up with one negative thing for the USA though (if we bring the cultures closer eachother): the USA cannot keep the Muslims as a 'uniting external enemy' - and if there are no new to be found, its something comletely new for the USA in its history. The question is how well the USA will do without any 'external enemy', it might be too deeply rooted in US culture for the USA to be able to be the same (as in 'not very good' for US future development) without one. 2. The USA draws back in shame without taking credit for the 'peaceful solution' (I'm not sure how if could happen, but in case it is possible..). The opposing nations together with UN take all the credit, and USA + in some extent the UK take all the shame. Probably good for the EU and UN, at least in the shot run, but really bad for the USA. I dont think I am able to speculate really good of what will happen with the USA here, but is for sure nothing to the better. Maybe the nation will 'explode' of frustration - and that would not be good for our small planet.... 3. The Security Council approves an attack on Iraq since Iraq later clearly violates UN directives. Probably no big problems in the short term, but long term effects could lead to a nasty conflict. The opposing nations and the UN will not be very happy (as it probably won't be considered as really neccessary with a war, but US influence made it happen), but no big problems on short term either. For the USA it will probably be very positive (growing economy), even in longterm - since the USA will have 'uniting enemies' for generations to come. To conclude: nasty conflict, but USA will not be considered the 'big satan' alone, but the western world in general will + USA will continue having a good time in the closest decades (with occasional terror attacks, but they are only for the better, since they amplify the evilness of the enemy). 4. USA goes into Iraq alone; probably without UK since its not aproved by the Security Council (and the parlament will not vote for a war in that case). Well, what will happen? I cant see anything good for anyone here. Not for the opposing nations, definitely not for the UN; and not for the USA either. US home opinion fails, terrorism grows to 'not so positive proportions', really nasty conflict in the entire middle-east that will later possibly spread to WW3, and... well you name it..... Â AND so for the foxer's quote (and the 'not so well followed reason to post this' ): If point 1 comes true, USA will probably be happy to deploy any troops - as long as there is any 'tasty enemy' around in future conflicts. If point 2 comes true, the USA will not in any case make much of an effort to help others anymore - but will probably have some wars on its own; maybe even to meet the in this case 'quickly developing united European military force'. If point 3 comes true, things will go on 'as usual' when it comes to US military involvement. If point 4 comes true, well who knows? There will probably not be much of a united opinion of what is to be done in conflict resolving. USA goes its own way like everyone else in the very likely WW3........ Any comments? EDIT: some corrections

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,12:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> [in a nasty screaming American action movie voice] Oh my god!! we're all gonna die!!! What am I gonna do?? **runs to hide in the toilet** EDIT: Oh my god!!! It was water in the toilet!!! What if those evil whales of mass destruction comes up the drain!?? Oh my god!!! what am I gonna do!?? Aaaaaaaaarrrgghhhh.. **Mysterious ending of typing as the über-evil Whale of Aaaaaaaaarrrgghhhh comes through the kitchen drain** Seriously though: The February 5 evidence presentation by Colin Powell of US intelligence that the world was waiting for for so long - and that also was preceded by words like "the world will be surprised over how strong evidence we really got" - really ruined US credibility totally for me. And I'm quite sure I'm not the only one of that opinion. Sure, it probably had some tiny worth (even if much of it has been proved as manipulation or incorrect), but whatever it was - it was not strong, decisive evidence.... It was a hyped, important moment, and the Bush administration would probably have done better in making up some 'hard faslified' lies (but they deserve credibility for not trying anyway). I dont think US international credibility will ever rise from that again. Face it: The US government really want to attack Iraq, but cant come up with a good reason for it. I really hope this will serve as an 'final failure', and end a pathetic era in our history where lies and decieving was an 'everyday part' of international politics (just look at international politics today, you will find 100 times better aguments from 'schoolyard bullying gangs' than what is common in international politics).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Feb. 17 2003,15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a very good topic, though. It's just very hard to come to any morally and at the same time technically justifiable conclusion. Â <span id='postcolor'> Maybe bound to be a discussion between 'normopaths' (like Sovjet collective masses were supposed to be like) praising rules, values and norms that put some structure to the world (in this case - "Well they are rules now, are'nt they?" ), and 'psycopaths' (like individualistic free Americans are supposed to be like) questioning the rules, values and norms that the world is made up of, and limits it (in this case - "Ha! Rules! In wars?! LMAO!" ). Sorry, I think I got too much time at my hands (well not really, but I can pretend to push the tiresome stuff away). Been a while since I posted this much crap in one day

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chronicles @ Feb. 17 2003,15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War : Soldiers killing soldiers (guerilla are in the same category) Massacre : It begins by murdering civilian , intentionally or not Soldiers choose to kill and die (resulting of obeying orders) by choosing to be a soldier , civilian never make such a choice, but are forced by soldiers to die , intentionally or not. That is why i never call a war a massacre and a massacre a war.<span id='postcolor'> 1. What about drafted troops? 2. Is'nt fleeing troops close to transform into the category 'civilians' ?

From one of Joltans links ( EDIT: Should maybe add that the article is from June last year) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is notable about this new American interventionism is the way it bypasses the United Nations. Like it or not, Washington has no patience for the UN. The United States has its own intelligence, its own forces - and is prepared to act on its own. It would sometimes seek allied help, including Russian help. But it would not depend on such help. To some, this means going back to the days of big power politics, even to the 19th century when states made determinations of what threats they faced and acted as they saw fit. And they often saw fit to be aggressive. The UN charter was supposed to lead to an era of collective action. It allows individual states to act only in self defence, though that is not defined. Washington is going to define it very widely. The policy can be called unilateralism, it can be called aggression, it can be called assuming responsibility. It has to be called a fact. <span id='postcolor'> The obvoius argument here is of course that USA after all is the only superpower. The as obvoius counter argument is - for how much longer? Â (to spare you from asking what I mean: do you think that that these are signs of a sound and healthy superpower? )

Ok. I think I get it: Slaughtering 40 000 humans of the category 'soldiers' that is fleeing is totally ok. Killing one soldier with a chemical/biological agent is wrong, even if that soldier is still fighting. Whats the real differance?? The only personal 'experience' of fleeing troops I personally got, is when I always pursuit and kill all fleeing troops in the Shogun/Mediaval Total war games. Sure, I dont want to face those troops again. But I would on the other hand dont mind gasing them to death either. But since thats not legal, I will probably never have the opportunity to. Tell me, is it that dying from chemical/biological agents is 100 times worse than slowly burning to death that is the reason for it being illegal? Was there ever even in WW1 any single gas attack that killed 40 000?? Is it just that it looks so much cooler when people burn to death than when their bodies malfunction due to C/B agents? The reason is maybe that the winner/most powerful always have the opportunity to define what really happened. If Iraq would have done something like it, I bet USA would see it as reason enough to use nuclear weapons against them. Remember - nuclear weapons is justified to use when many soldiers risk dying. EDIT: oops, I made an illegal actionn here; I spelled nuclear as nucelar

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Feb. 16 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Was that boring? maybe i should say stuff like The UN SUX ,KILL SADDAM, LONG LIVE FREEDOM !<span id='postcolor'> OMG, thats hilarious. You should be a comedian! I agree on most things you write about ethics, again good post! I felt the need to add some comments though: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This may mean (in the UN for instance)that in many cases the only statements that could recieve universal backing are so general as to be functionally meaningless and so inoffensive as to suggest no real change. <span id='postcolor'> Thats not what I would call bad things however. To begin with "functionally meaningless": We live in a very pragmatic time were everthing should be concrete, 'great sounding', things that lead to conctete actions. War is a good example of such 'today considered as meaningful stuff'. Concrete great stuff is not often very creative in the long run though, but mostly serves as signals to the masses that something is done. The UN has therefore a reputation as meaningless in many peoples opinions, they dont primary perform concrete actions, but only seems like boring buerocrats. An example of what I mean is: The split between the social science approaches 'hermeneutic' (abstract interpretions) and 'positivistic' (logical conclusions based on concrete observations); the later is not considered to function very good anymore - there is always more to things than the immediatly observable. The problem is of course that with hermeneutic methods one cant claim to find any absolute truth; on the other hand its most likely that there dont exist any 'absolute truths'. We just have to learn to live with slow 'meaningless loking' struggles if we want to solve any problems with creative, positive and lasting results. One function to solve problems 'the American entertaining way' is of course that they in most cases pop up again, even if in other form - like destroy one enemy, and you get another. But that is indeed a positive thing if one are addicted to unite towards an common enemy; always make sure there is one. USA will not fail to have plenty of new enemies after the coming war on Iraq... As for "real change": Do you really think that radical-quick-big changes is always, or at all, positive? Do you for example think that extreme feminists (that want to 'eliminate' all 'men' here and now) have a positive approach? The biggest chance of a positive success is almost always to be found in relatively slow, mutual, change and development. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is nothing in my opinion to legitimise Saddams gas attacks and other massacres, tortures etc . I agree that the USA and other 'big' countries have acted poorly with the kurds and other before but i am an optimist (in the short term) and its never to late to start making up for past mistakes. <span id='postcolor'> I can tell you that I am just as optimistic of US political change as I am of Iraqi political change (quite possible in the long run in both cases I believe, even if I think that US change is even harder to achive than Iraqi change). So is it really reasonable at all for USA to attack Iraq, most likely killing more innocent civilians than any eventual Iraqi attack would? The problem is that thousands innocent civilian deaths from an US attack is certain, but the opposite (any eventual Iraqi attack) is only speculations, and can be dealt with peacefully if only the right methods is (allowed to be) used - but its hard for anyone to know for sure which one is the right. But I cant see anything else than that an attack have lesser chance of success in the long run than the worst peaceful solution. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Longinius- I think that the USA (and the EU) -should- press Turkey more strongly on its bad relationship with the kurds. There are diplomatic reasons why the US doesnt (they feel they need to keep Turkey as an ally) especially now. I think that US governments have been overly polite in this but in the aftermath of a war in Iraq they would be forced to stop such actions. <span id='postcolor'> Fun thing that I heared on Swedish news tonight regarding USA-Turkey: USA offers Turkey 50 billion SEK as 'aid', and another 170 billion SEK as a loan (total ~26 billion US$ ) for Turkey to allow USA to use their airbases in an attack on Iraq. It is not clear yet whether Turkey are going to accept the proposal, but Turkey have pressed USA for a much higher amount! EDIT: USA is also working on similar offers to Israel and Jordan. source (in Swedish)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Feb. 14 2003,22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pukko- i certainly think Saddam has commited enough human rights violations on a massive scale to warrant an action. Its true that other states are bad on this issue, but the only ones who are worse than Saddam i think (eg North Korea) would be very difficult to attack without risking wider war. The Iraqi government is quite easy to attack quickly without too much risk of wider war. Saddam Hussein IS breaching UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. He is trying to appear cooperative but large enough violations have taken place that could theoretically justify war in a legal sense. In a moral sense you have only to look at the suffering the Iraqi people have gone through, and which could continue if Saddam was able continue controlling the country. If there is war people will die, but people die violently under Saddams regime anyway and if he rules Iraq for another.....10? 20? years how many more will die? and what if his son takes over? another 50 years? War may -possibly- be averted if Saddam makes some great concessions though these would only be taking place because of the threat of force as foxer says. The new report may make war just slighty less likely But if there is no war then even if they do officially celebrate, ordinary Iraqis will not be celebrating in their heads or in their homes. They will simply be thinking "oh no! <!--emo& Â another 20 years of bombing, living fearfully in a pariah state and being forced to praise this guy!" or something like that<span id='postcolor'> I'll not argue against you since I cant nearly, if anyone really can, claim to have a complete picture of the situation in the Gulf area. But I do question the middle east to be an safe area, and Iraq as a nation that only is beaten by North Korea when it comes to human rights. Saddams regime is without doubt an oppressive dictatorship, and I will not defend him (on the other hand you might recall from the mideast thread that I dont defend our own very relatively 'free, unoppressive western world' either). But it also seems like (source from earlier posts here) Iraq is'nt the most opressive nation in the Gulf either, but on the contrary might be one of the better of the Arab nations when it comes to human rights, at least some - like womens rights. While at the same time USA is one of only 2 nations in the world that has not ratified the 'Convention on the rights of children', and many others like the 'non discrimination against women convention' etc. USA:s death penalties and other human rights 'violations' may not be comparable to Iraqs torture etc. though. And ofcourse its not really possible to compare Iraq to any western nation when it comes to human rights. But it might be ways to win even Saddams symphaties for a wider human rights program in the long run if the western world makes real efforts in improving relations and creating trust within the muslim world and stop bullying and exploit them - there have'nt been many real, serious, such efforts lately, have there? They are humans, and human rights is not only 'evil western ideas'. I think we will have much bigger chance of success in fighting terrorism and hostilities from muslim areas through struggles to really try to gain the muslims nations goodwill; wars dont do that very well as history can tell. And when it comes to the middle east as an area where one can "quite easy to attack quickly without too much risk of wider war" I dont think many agree. I cant personally argue for the real dangers there (but Balschoiw for example surely can), but I'm quite sure that the dangers are quite big; both within Iraq and from neighboring nations. Here's a, quite silly indeed - but not without substance, link that has been posted here several times to a 'Gulf War 2 game': http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml And when it comes to North Korea, well they might be quite dangerous themselves without taking the surounding area in to consideration (or at least 10 times as dangerous as an 'Iraq in ruins' can be).

Good post IsthatyouJohnWayne (I like it when people collect their thoughts). We have had our arguments in the mideast thead if I recall it right, but here I agree with you - too But do you really think that it would be a solid justification to attack Iraq over human rights? There are so many other worse nations to liberate in that case. And dont you think that it will be extremely hard or close to impossible to maker the situation to the better, at least in the nearest decade? As I see it this war will trigger events that undoubtly will make many more humans suffer than what is the case now...

Pathetic indeed, but most that have happened internationally, involving the US, since Bush junior became president seems to be (with big exeptions like the symbolic, but big indeed - was it $ 15 billion?, intention to aid African nations in fighting AIDS).. Some seems to consider the rising voices against a war in Iraq as bad. I would say its the 'least bad thing that could happen in this situation'. Because this situation is bad to the bones. If everyone kept quiet, shivering in fear of bad US relations, and the USA would be able to keep up the shine of 'good for all intentions' - while at the same time eliminating the UN - this would likely be the start of something so horrible that we rather not even think about it. I must say that I am very happy about the recent developments, not because its hurting UN, not because its hurting the USA, not because its hurting EU, not because its hurting NATO, but because its the only possible way to make the situation to the 'best it can be'. I have been sad, or even depressed, over the developments after 9/11, and have not been able to see much else than a very longlasting global conflict coming out of it. Some might have gained from it short-term, but in the long run everyone would be losers. But the latest developments make it hard or impossible for the USA to attack Iraq while at the same time keep up the good shine. There are many losers as it is, but if the conflict would have developed without opposition the USA would have attacked Iraq, and later [insert random evil nation here], with the maintained shine of 'the good heroes saving the world', we would soon be in the midst of a global conflict never before seen. As it is now, USA, UN, EU and NATO will all pay a high price, but the possibility of further US warmongering is severely reduced; and the long term global stabilisation is somewhat more positive/possible. Preemptive vaugly justified attacks does not make the world a better place, sitting on the ass trying to improve relations does (or at least have some chance of success)..... I thank you German, French and Beligian governments (and also the Swedish which has now adopted a similar line, even if more quieltly) for giving me hope of a better future

WOW! At last some real positive vibrations in the international community! The fact that god old Belgium dares to stick out is positive in it self (that also the smaller nations of "the old Europe" (Rumsfeldts 'insult' the other week) dares to speak its mind). But the Franco/German proposal of deploying UN peace keepers and trippling inspectors is awesomely wonderful to hear! At last a counter proposal to an invasion. And no, if France and Russia do it partly because of their oildeals its nowhere close to as bad as invading to get some oil (and in the long run ruin so much more). And of course there will be long term consequences no matter what happens now, but a bad relations between Europe and USA is far better than a potential WW3 or a long lasting 'global Israel/Palestine conflict'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 02 2003,02:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Feb. 02 2003,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I got four points in this post, starting with: 1. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 01 2003,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NSA Secret Tapes<span id='postcolor'> From what I understand in that article most of the new evidence that will be presented on Wednesday is going to be strictly media based proof. Just like all the proof presented after 9/11 to justify an attack on Afganistan, or is there any 'hard' evidence that I have missed there (except for the fairytales about liberating the Afgan people). I cant honestly say that I am convinsed that the terrorists were at all muslims (but I know, stating that now is like saying that the earth is flat; it has become an undoubtable absolute truth). I hope for the sake of all lovely American people that the day will not come when any eventual 'real' people behind 9/11 present hard evidence that they were the real terrorists; and then fulfil their goal of 'eliminating' the USA. There is one risk in trusting the US government being completely honest about all their 'secret proofs'. The day may come when it is revealed to be all made up bullshit, and that it was justified by pointing out that the 'times demanded it'. Please just remember the points that media like the movie 'Wag the dog' and this clip of George W Bush speaking tries to make. 2. I will not support a war against Iraq even if some real hard proof of Iraq possesing some WMD:s. The exeption would be if hard proof could be given of big amounts of  missile-based-WMD:s could be presented and/or hard proofs of plans to use them. And the proofs would have to be accepted by a majority of the global community, and preferably also be accessible to everyone who want to check its authenticity. If the 'media-proof' presented on wednesday only is about some thousand artillery based chemical-capable-shells, I dont know if will cry or laugh about it... but I have no doubt that no matter how pathetic the evidence turns out to be, the war will launched anyway. And dont come dragging with the 'Iraq breaks UN rules' as a justification for a war. Many, many many other coutries do too, and USA is one of the worst members of the UN when it comes too ratifying UN conventions (like the chemical & biological weapons, childrens rights and 'non discrimination against women' etc. conventions + ignoring the criminal court and Kyoto protocol. And there are many more), and thereby placing itself outside the UN, while at the same time controlling it in many areas... 3. If a war against Iraq is so extremely important, then it also have to be worth the risking of lives to accomplish it. If one are not ready to risk one's own life for a cause, there is no justification to risk others lives for it. In this case by, not only risking - but knowingly killing thousands civilians by, bombing. If you answer with the 'one have to break some eggs to make an omelett' argument, I really dont have any words for how low you have sunken, but know this: wars today is a quite perverse form of entertainment..... 4. I hope you know, I'm quite sure that you deep inside know anyway, that the only lasting and real result of a vaugly justified war against Iraq now (and most certainly Iran and North Korea later) will be wastly increased hatered against the USA globally. The comfort you may get in having a vaugly defined enemy to blame everything on (also called scapegoat) - terrorists - comes to a very high price (yes I am implying that many of you want to have, and actively work to maintain -even if uncounciously -, this enemy), global depression and conflict - most certainly unprecendented in all history....<span id='postcolor'> i agree with pukko , and he's found the words i wasn't able to find myself , it's nice to see that there are still some reasonable people on this poor planet<span id='postcolor'> Nice to see that someone read it anymore comments anyone? I stand by my opinions, even if there are much more to say, mostly about what is already discussed here in general (that others do much better than I am capable of), but also some closer examinations of our indeed quite pathetic western society - but I will spare you from that in this context Let there be no doubt however, [me using Bush rethorics] the United States of America will go to war no matter what happens. Because once an American president has said something, especially if it is repeated for a year, there is too much pride and prestiege involved to not go through with it. A war that probably wont even be enough justified within the USA, and just serve as a big dig of USA:s own grave. What will the masters of illusions be rememered as in history; the land of cheap entertainment? I feel truly sad about these signs of our deeply pathetic period in history, and would like to share something that might give you some energy back, if you like me feel it draining. Just a link to a piece of music that has been on the Swedish lists since September, that might give sparkling light of hope in these dark times. I would not call it 'anti American', rather 'tired of US influence'. It might also give Americans an hint of developing international attitudes towards the USA: Click on the red text "se videon" on the 5:th line to see the real player video ps. You might, and will, call me anti american. But even if I have not been to the USA myself, I have many relatives there (one of who became 'miss tiny Illinois' the other year.. ) and have met many interesting Americans too . I also know a woman here in Sweden who lost her father in WTC. I dont have anything against American human beings, but I do begin to have a hard time with US idelology. EDIT pps. I neither cried or laughed at the 'great US evidence' presented today, rather just the calmly shocked feeling of 'is this really possible in the year of 2003?'

I got four points in this post, starting with: 1. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 01 2003,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NSA Secret Tapes<span id='postcolor'> From what I understand in that article most of the new evidence that will be presented on Wednesday is going to be strictly media based proof. Just like all the proof presented after 9/11 to justify an attack on Afganistan, or is there any 'hard' evidence that I have missed there (except for the fairytales about liberating the Afgan people). I cant honestly say that I am convinsed that the terrorists were at all muslims (but I know, stating that now is like saying that the earth is flat; it has become an undoubtable absolute truth). I hope for the sake of all lovely American people that the day will not come when any eventual 'real' people behind 9/11 present hard evidence that they were the real terrorists; and then fulfil their goal of 'eliminating' the USA. There is one risk in trusting the US government being completely honest about all their 'secret proofs'. The day may come when it is revealed to be all made up bullshit, and that it was justified by pointing out that the 'times demanded it'. Please just remember the points that media like the movie 'Wag the dog' and this clip of George W Bush speaking tries to make. 2. I will not support a war against Iraq even if some real hard proof of Iraq possesing some WMD:s. The exeption would be if hard proof could be given of big amounts of  missile-based-WMD:s could be presented and/or hard proofs of plans to use them. And the proofs would have to be accepted by a majority of the global community, and preferably also be accessible to everyone who want to check its authenticity. If the 'media-proof' presented on wednesday only is about some thousand artillery based chemical-capable-shells, I dont know if will cry or laugh about it... but I have no doubt that no matter how pathetic the evidence turns out to be, the war will launched anyway. And dont come dragging with the 'Iraq breaks UN rules' as a justification for a war. Many, many many other coutries do too, and USA is one of the worst members of the UN when it comes too ratifying UN conventions (like the chemical & biological weapons, childrens rights and 'non discrimination against women' etc. conventions + ignoring the criminal court and Kyoto protocol. And there are many more), and thereby placing itself outside the UN, while at the same time controlling it in many areas... 3. If a war against Iraq is so extremely important, then it also have to be worth the risking of lives to accomplish it. If one are not ready to risk one's own life for a cause, there is no justification to risk others lives for it. In this case by, not only risking - but knowingly killing thousands civilians by, bombing. If you answer with the 'one have to break some eggs to make an omelett' argument, I really dont have any words for how low you have sunken, but know this: wars today is a quite perverse form of entertainment..... 4. I hope you know, I'm quite sure that you deep inside know anyway, that the only lasting and real result of a vaugly justified war against Iraq now (and most certainly Iran and North Korea later) will be wastly increased hatered against the USA globally. The comfort you may get in having a vaugly defined enemy to blame everything on (also called scapegoat) - terrorists - comes to a very high price (yes I am implying that many of you want to have, and actively work to maintain -even if uncounciously -, this enemy), global depression and conflict - most certainly unprecendented in all history....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You still have the fundamental problem of people willing to achieve their goals at the expense of other people's life and limbs. I see two possible global developments from this, both bad: [*] USA pressures the UN into approving a war [*] USA ignores the UN and goes by itself In the first case UN will lose its credibility since it can't enforce what the majority of the world thinks is right. In the second case the UN loses its credibility since some of it's members choose not to follow UN directives and international law when it fits them to do so. A war on Iraq is just a big setback for the UN, no matter how you view it. Collin Powell has made it clear that USA will start the war with or without the support of the UN. If it does it without it will be an illegal war, no more lawful then for instance the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. There won't be any sanctions against America for that and the UN will lose its credibility.<span id='postcolor'> And what do you think the situation will be in, say 10 years? If USA does not manage to brainwash most of the world, it will surely turn to the opposite quite soon again. If USA goes on with this war, and later continues it war on terrorism, I recon the US will have dug their own grave too deep to be able to get up from it again. EDIT: I probably do best in clarifying that this is not what I hope will happen with the US, but a likely development that will balance the global community again, if the UN is 'eliminated' at first. There is one thing that could make it all in to one of the worst series of 'happenings' ever though: If USA manages to keep a good shine up in this, and most certainly coming wars - and at the same time eliminate the UN. In that case we are probably on the doorstep to one of the most chaotic periods of mankind.... Â Â But I refuse to be a comlpete pessimist. Even if this would drag the world in a several-centuries-long global conflict, mankind will hopefully stand up once again. But I agee; the current situation is very potential to develop in to the worst conflict in the history of mankind.... Â edited above and some typos.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,20:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it is sad that obviously the cold war experience has not taught us very much. I guess the lust for war, hate and agression runs too deep in human nature. I am very sceptical to that we some day might achieve world peace. One can try to explain armed conflicts by terms of economic or cultural segregation but this war to come on Iraq shows that there does not have to be a justifiable reason behind it.<span id='postcolor'> I believe symbolic reasons are the real strong ones as (I) usual (-ly do). And that it do not have anything to do with (the ever developing) human nature, just the symthom of a pathetic chapter in history. At risk to repeat myself one time too much, I say there are 2 major symbolic reasons for the USA at this time: 1. The during the latest decades developed need for USA as a nation to have an external enemy (abstinence since the cold war). Muslims have been alienated in US media ever since the gulf war. 2. The need to unite the nation during a economically hard time; war does (in many cases anyway) unite people and give an at least short-time boost to production and economic growth. In this particular case I do not think it will work even on short-term anylonger though; but I do believe that it was one of the original intentions and reasons (add to that major stuff like oil and the Israeli lobby and there is quite a reaon for war). If USA go through with this war, I believe that the world will learn yet another lession (and USA loose much of its international prestiege). And there will be ever harder to start wars in the future... But I have to say that I do have been surprised, or even shocked, since 9/11 over how primitive/'uncivilised' times we still live in. But I still see great hope in the future.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 27 2003,09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA is considering using nukes in Iraq? Read these two articles from the LA Times. U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq The Nuclear Option in Iraq You must register to read them but it only takes a couple of minutes.<span id='postcolor'> Here is a quote from the latest article: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to multiple sources close to the process, the current planning focuses on two possible roles for nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives; thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners. But the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold. It rewrites the ground rules of nuclear combat in the name of fighting terrorism. It also moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options -- from psychological warfare, covert operations and Special Forces to air power in all its other forms. For the United States to lower the nuclear threshold and break down the firewall separating nuclear weapons from everything else is unsettling for at least three reasons. First, if the United States lowers the nuclear threshold -- even as a possibility -- it raises the likelihood that other nations will lower their own thresholds and employ nuclear weapons in situations where they simply need a stronger military punch. Until now, the United States has reserved nuclear weapons for retaliation against nuclear attacks or immediate threats to national survival, a standard tacitly but widely accepted around the world. If the president believes that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses that kind of danger to the United States, he has failed to convince the world -- and many U.S. citizens. Second, the move toward thinking of nuclear weapons as just one more option among many comes at a time when technology is offering a host of better choices. Increasingly, the U.S. military has the capability of disabling underground bases or destroying biological and chemical weapons without uncorking the nuclear bottle, through a combination of sophisticated airpower, special operations and such 21st century capabilities as high-powered microwave weapons and cyber warfare. Third, there are dangers in concentrating the revision of nuclear policy within a single military command, STRATCOM, which until now has been focused strictly on strategic -- not policy -- issues of nuclear combat. Command staff members have unrivaled expertise in the usage and effects of nuclear weapons, but their expertise does not extend to the whys of weapons usage. <span id='postcolor'> Ok, the radiation of blown up bukers might be low, not taking into account any eventual spread of stored WMD:s. But the worst is ofcourse USA:s signal in being prepared to use nuclear bombs, even if not attacked first... What was this (well, still not 100% a fact) war about now again? Â

Why not ask the rays of light transmitting this message what its like? oh, and by the way bn880; since you after all give an explanation of what one would concieve at the speed of light: accoring to the relativity principle (the general is it, right? ) you would have used up all energy in the entire universe before you would come anywhere near the speed of light. And anywhere near in this case is really the matter of incredible small numbers (relative the speed of light) making up incredible big velocity differances. If I recall it right is 0.9999999 the speed of light nowhere near the actual speed of light (it increased by more than the exponent in the formula right? ). Therefore I think its really strange that they had such a big error tolerance "but we have an error of plus or minus 0.21". Speed of light +-0.21 is............ wait, I made quite an error in my thinking LOL Ofcourse its the mass that increases exponentially, and not the speed. Ok, lucky for you I am lightyears away from researching advanced physics

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I also heard what Rumsfeld had to say about France and Germany today. He classified us as "old europe" that doesnt count much anymore. He said that eastern european countries (that are in fact not in the EU by now) are the ones that like US so the "old europe" opinion doesnt count much anymore. This will keep the US foreign ministry very busy the next days. What is he after ? To discredit countries that dont support war ? What happened ? German foreign minister Fischer said that there is no support for a war right now. He said that UN weapon inspectors must be given time to finish their investigations. Same did French foreign minister De Villepin. Rumsfeld now says that France and Germany are a problem. What is next. Will the US bomb us cause we dont agree to a war ? We are a problem now. Funny. He also said that the vast majority of other countries is on the US side and shares their opinions on the war on Iraq which is in fact a big lie to the american public.<span id='postcolor'> I bow towards the German and French governments for making such official statements (no matter what eventual secondary reasons they might have to do it). Most of the world is for sure too dependent on US relations to risk any dangerous comments. Russia more or less officially said they are, recently (EDIT: that was probably only in my dreams, getting a little tired ). Swedish officials are obviously also part of the frightened masses. Primeminister Göran Persson gave a real pathetic impression when asked why he would not make a similar statement this evening (dont remember exactly what he said though, but it was just a few, hesitant words). Of course 'the old Europe' is a problem. They probably constitute the only (with Australia, Canada and maybe some other as the few exceptions) nations who's opinions have any weight what so ever towards American massopinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 22 2003,17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 22 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> This is CNN's logo for the crisis.  They've also composed some dramatic theme music to go with it. CNN made a fortune 10 years ago broadcasting live from Baghdad and they don't plan to miss out on this new source of revenue.  In fact, all the major media groups are already investing heavily in new conflict logos and theme music to go along with the multi-million dollar advertising contracts being signed with corporate sponsors for when/if the first bombs start falling. I wonder if any of the innocent Iraqi civilians who will perish will ever even hear the wonderful music being composed for the occasion of their deaths. Welcome to the 21st century! <span id='postcolor'> Reminds of some televised WWF match  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> Reminds me of a Roger Waters album from '92; "Amused to death". Here's a link to a google search: http://www.google.com/search?....ing&lr= EDIT: sorry, I missed the 2 last pages..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 20 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it that no one every replies to any of my arguments? Â Are they just too damn good, or do you think that my arguments aren't worth a reply! Reply something damnit! Â I want a discussion too!<span id='postcolor'> Then you better start posting some concrete-soucrce based-unbiased-trustworthy stuff too. But the main thing is to keep it plain, simple and concrete And it really helps if you leave any aims of deepened understanding and knowledge to the side, and just tries to win the argument.. EDIT: I have to add that I dont really remember what kind of posts you use to to, so dont be insulted by the above if thats incorrect. I write my abstract speculative/philosophical stuff, no matter if someone likes it or not at the few times I feel for it; and dont really care if someone responds. I try to keep on edge in my conception of the world, and therefore dont take much notice of details; the world (or indeed universe) is not a concrete place and I cant see the point in spending my entire life just trying to reduce it to a concrete winning argument.... And to get back on topic. I read on the last pages once again about 'USA is blamed no matter what we do'. And well, the problem is not necessary that USA does too much; its in my opinion the ever lasting focus on 'concrete symbolic actions'. USA does not seem to do much that is not in their direct interest. It is always supposed to look like good things (aid to well choosen recievers, wars that always serve the nation in more than one aspect). USA is very keen on getting credit for every single international action (just look at their wheat sack that are sent as aid, lol ); and that is best done by only focusing on concrete actions - so that everyone can see that USA is doing something. Not everyone focuses on concrete actions, in exchange for credit, but some takes comfort in only trying to do what they really believe to be good in the long run (as in abstract, long term intentions). Its not easy to know the differance, since the concrete shortterm actions is always given the shine of 'good for all intentions'. But as a rule it may be said that the more someone brags about all the many good actions that is done, the more likely it is that its coplete bullshit in own interests. I am a european, and I would never say that european countries mostly does abstract-alturistic-with-no-hope-of-getting-credit-for-it-actions. But the fact that you Americans primary see us as passive, 'just sitting on our asses' is a real good sign for that we do are quite successful in the making of such actions. Now one may argue that EU is just ineffective and buerocratic. It is indeed at the time, but I really fear for the opposite to be a fact; that EU is really certralised and that many actions are taken to unite the european people. Such actions would have to be symbolic-concrete actions, like 'in the most extreme case' playing world police and staring wars at will. Therefore I hope that EU will not make any real efforts in uniting the European people quickly by cheap tricks, or we will just take USA:s place once their influence shrinks...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 20 2003,00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 19 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 19 2003,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So the US gov. knew that by supporting the Soviet resistance would cause the spawn of the Taliban and terrorism. Â I think not.<span id='postcolor'> Should have, and they KNOW now that playing god is very dangerous. Â So stop it finally. Â Learn something at least from decades of stupid conflict!<span id='postcolor'> Fine with me. Â I would rather see the U.S. withdrawl ALL foreign aid. Â Close the borders and fix our own problems. Â However, I imagine that when the shit hits the fan, we will be called again. <!--emo&<!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> Then when we close our borders, we are still one of the strongest nations. Â Then when something goes bad, we get bitched at for not trying to help when we have the power.<span id='postcolor'> My thought exactly!<span id='postcolor'> mine too!<span id='postcolor'> Mine too, since I recon USA does more bad than good at present. The global community needs to sit on their asses and just try to improve relations in the current crucial phase of our globalisation; splitting up the world even more as USA (Imo) currently does is something we can all do without. Unfortionally (and this is not US bashing, but a strong feeling I have) USA will probably shorten its historical period as the most powerful nation quite much if that is done. But its still better than the eventual collapse that I believe USA will come to in the closest decades if the US continues down the current road. Dont ask me to clarify it, since its rather too abstract to discuss in this forum; but you can read 'some quite pathetical attempts' to explain it in for example the mideast thread (I found it: here )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 18 2003,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Jan. 17 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Darklight, maybe you got it, but that was just some poor jokes by Albert  <span id='postcolor'> I know, i posted that just to get reactions like this one <span id='postcolor'> lol  sorry for even commenting (is that a word? ) I did not read through it again, and remembered it as 'not quite impossible to belive' ; now I re-read it and saw stuff like 'executed and left to dry in the sun'....  damn you Sherlock Schweizer Â