The Cold War is over. Welcome to TheColdWorld. The inevitable progress of technology now means that it no longer takes a superpower to harness the power of the atom. 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in general have become easy to acquire and/or manufacture. In the coming years, more developing nations will develop frightening military powers. NorthKorea may already posses nuclear warheads. Iraq admits that it HAD (ahem) weapons of mass destruction. Iran has a working nuclear power program -- which raises the question: what else do they have? Certainly, we can't bomb everyone who develops or acquires powerful weaponry. The justification in the case of Iraq is rooted, perhaps indirectly, in it's failed invasion of Kuwait in the early 90's. If you believe that Iraq's violation of UN resolution 1441 is the only reason, I can only say that I hope you're wrong. North Korea has already expelled the International Atomic Energy Agency, and violated an agreement with the US in which it agreed to halt its military program by resuming operations of a nuclear power facility.

Back to the broader picture: military might no longer comes in the form of huge armies with superpower budgets. Military might no longer requires a demonstrated or surmised ability to successfully invade or otherwise overtake another country. Nowadays, military might lies in the ability to inflict individual blows as opposed to taking over the world. North Korea's number one threat to the United States is that it could destroy Seoul -- nukes or not. All this fear and fervor concerning North Korea doesn't center around a perceived threat to our Homeland (same goes for Iraq), but the possibility that, with a single act, or at least within a few hours, North Korea could inflict a million or more civilian deaths.

I find this Iraq business very confusing. Pre-emptive military force is dangerous ground. Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc. are not exactly historical figures to emulate. But what if the US is salvaging our chances for world peace by sending this message:

"If you can't play nice, you're grounded. If you're caught sneaking out of the house while you're grounded, you get a spanking."

Put another way, Iraq may only be the beginning of a worldwide trend of military might falling into the wrong hands, leading to invasions and massacres. If we set the precedent that, after an initial violation, the UN must be obeyed very strictly to prevent war with the US, even insane leaders might think twice.

I wish we were walking a little more softly, but maybe our big stick policies are a worthwhile investment after all. Time will tell.

-OutRadulous

Addendum: I still oppose a war without UN or NATO backing. In the end, however, I think the chances are good that war would have come about anyway, albeit a bit further down the road. The question I'm asking is not whether the US is taking diplomatically sound actions, but whether force was ultimately avoidable. I think the diplomatic failures will be difficult to erase in the future, but regime change in Iraq might actually improve something -- especially if AnotherPresident is elected in 2004 who takes a more progressive stance on the subject of rebuilding the Middle East.

-OutRadulous

We missed an important opportunity here for the world to unite against war and terror. If we can get out quickly with minimal cost in lives, and take out Saddam, it may seem that what we did was right. But unless we see the stupidity of our action, missing a great opportunity, and creating great world wide hatred against the united states for no good reason, we are likely to take the Rambo road next time also, justifying the suicide bombers claims against us and setting the stage for Armageddon. -JimScarver

The day before the bombs began falling in Baghdad, the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech promising to continue their complete cooperation with UN inspections, and walks out into the lobby where he meets President Bush.

As they walk the Iraqi says, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America."

President Bush says "Well your Excellency, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have about America."

The Iraqi whispers "My son watches this show 'StarTrek' and in it there are Russians, and Blacks, and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."

President Bush laughs, leans toward the Iraqi and whispers: "It's because it takes place in the future."

To be fair, I expect bush thought he could get Saddam day one. If he had succeeded he would be a hero, the sanctions would be over, and the Iraqi people could start eating again.

http://www.endthewar.org/frontps/factsheet.htm

We cannot fight lies unless we unveil the truth behind the lie.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/iraq-o04.shtml

We can say the US will finish what it starts. We had little choice to stop the suffering.

We must be clear that world domination is not our mission and STOP sending that message====

==

We must assert our respect and support for the sovereignty of the worlds nations and stop threatening them when they don't agree with us. Give them back the right to disagree. Stop buying their support.

The human race has made strides in civil rights, stewardship of our planet, and other areas in my lifetime. To act barbarously and promote barbaric war because we think the world is not capable of being civilized is denying that change is happening all the time. The US is the major stumbling block in the world to making a world where war profane rather than noble and obsolete as a means to power.

"The State Department released a list Thursday of 30 countries it called members of a Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq. Along with Britain and Spain it included countries like Afghanistan, Albania and Eritrea but was notable for the absence of such important countries as France, Germany, Russia and China."

http://www.newhavenregister.com/site/news.cfm?BRD1281&dept_id7574&newsid7419870&PAG461&rfi=9

It is amazing to me that the US only managed to pressure 30 countries into signing a declaration that does not even directly support US action. If we assume these are UN member nations, Out of 191 UN members that is about 15% or 1 out of 6. Calling countries like Afghanistan supporters is a joke. A 6 billion dollar payoff to countries supporting us and severe repercussions if they do not does not fairly represent real support. An additional 5 billion was turned down by turkey for the use of their bases. If we did not act like the bully of the world we could get support without bribes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21596-2003Mar24.html

http://www.whtm.com/showstory.hrb?fn&s79750&f1=loc http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030326/2003032619.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EC25Df03.html http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/03/26/011.html http://www.canoe.ca/CalgaryNews/cs.cs-03-26-0045.html http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V3983.AP-Iraq-Americas-.html

If everyone thinks you are a bully they will hate you whether it is true or not. And if everyone thinks you are a bully, there is probably a good reason. How we are perceived is key to winning the war on terror, and if we do whatever we want to whomever we want in spite of world opinion we are bullies by definition independent of what anybody thinks.

We could all rest easier with Saddam out, if it were not at the cost of US dignity and respect that will surely bring more terrorism against us.

I'm not sure if Saddam is relanvent any more, win or lose. Your earlier aguements are valid. The cat is out of the bag. I think already the legal and economic consequences of this bilateral action, (Where are the other leaders? even Australia stayed at home.) far out way anything that can be decided on the battle field. Do you realise what is happening? You are losing control. The president will spend money that is not there in full view of the world. Already most people can see that Oil is a major factor in this, if it isn't why do they take a large interest in it? They have very large interests in Oil, that is, and has been public knowledge.

That's presuming that Bush is after the oil, and fitting the behaviour you see to support that.

Do you know how much damage it caused when Saddam's forces set the Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze? Do you know how much damage it did to the environment, how much starvation and hardships it inflicted on the region? That alone justifies worrying about a repeat. It costs people lives and created unnecessary economic hardship. The Bush Administration wants the goodwill of as many Iraqis as it can get, after action. That's why they've been prissy footing about.

Bush has started the government engine rolling on getting off of oil. If we were so concerned with oil, wouldn't it have been better to make nice with the Iraqis? It's a lot easier to help Mr Hussain's terrorize his people then it is to try to oust the bugger. Less costly for us, less risk. That is just maintaining the status quo, after all, and the status quo has a natural tendency to want to be maintained.

Finally, remember the stated goals of all this action is to have a nice, young, vibrant democracy that can support itself through its own exports. AIR, Iraq only has two things for export, oil and violence. Not many legal markets interested in violence.

---

I do not support Saddam at all. Yes he has caused many disasters. But i do not agree that you could make good deals with that regime, the embargo hindered that. Europeans were making good deals though. It is becoming apparent that the risk in this project is much greater than anticipanted. Refelect for a moment. Only 10 days ago we were told that this would be "Quick and Decisive". No one believes this now. So the cost has escalated. A military strategist was portrayed last night on television asking this question "What if the Regime leaders are destroyed and the resistance does not collapse?" No one has an answer to this. Many statements in the Arab world do not believe that democracy can be donated out of the barrel of a gun.

Already the English are not happy with contracts awarded to US companies. How blatant does it have to be?

The Scottish are voicing strong opposition, and the Australian Prime minister is backing out, and facing a political crisis of survial.

You may have to concede that Oil is a factor. To what degree, can be debated.

---

Pathetic. 10 days. "Quick and Decisive" in military terms means less then 3 years. People have unrealistic expectations if they think it should have been over in 3 days... like in the liberation of Kuwait. That took much longer then 3 days, BTW. We bombed the crap out of the them for 40+ days, and took even longer to build up and prepare. This is real life, not a video game.

Oil is only a factor because people choose to make it a factor. Their will always be those carrion eaters that plan for their own betterment on the blood, sweat, tears, and death of others. This isn't anything different. Just like how even Germany and France are begging to be allowed to own a few oil fields in the new Iraq. Remember: If the US was after oil, we'd have invaded Canada, not Iraq. The majority of our oil cames from Canada====

==

War is not something to be entered into lightly. It is called war for a reason. It is very easy for its chaos to spiral out of the area where one of the fighting party wants to keep it contained. Anyone who thinks war is an animal they can make do tricks in the center ring and behave are either the very young, or so completely clueless they need to be eliminated before their stupidity can be passed on to another generation.

Frankly, I don't care about how the Arab World sees this. Remember, everyone sees things just how they want to. What we are being shown is just how much the Arab World wants to be hated, persecuted, and elite from everyone else. Watch their presentions to themselves and each other. They are acting like angst teens, juiced up with what they know is right and that all the world is wrong, wrong, wrong. So wrong they cannot stand it, but too weak willed to do anything about it but whine and inflict violence on whatever is handy.

Anyone responsible, reasonable, or mature that can had better start showing that their 'people' have some redeeming quality. They are not projecting any, and haven't, in some time. Not even to themselves. This, I find worrisome. I know no sizable group of people are of one mind and one thought on a matter. So where are the more reasonable?

Most of the inflaming being down is pure yellow journalism. The unscrupilous driving up their ratings showing as much extreme material as they can. Painting inflaming pictures by immoral editting. I wonder if we can put the media on trial for war crimes? All that inflaming of the public (past and present) just leads to more death and harm.

Oh well. Today, I think we have a good chance of seeing nukes dropped in the Middle East before this is done. Iran thinks so too. That's why it is making it very clear that they are cooperating in the removal of the Iraqi regime. They do not want to suffer the fate of Iraq (and likely Syria). And the King of Jordan is working very hard to make sure we understand that some of his people are complete idiots, so please don't waste his country as well. Pay attention to what's going on...

Saddam's people and his neighbors are quite happy to see him go. They are just scared that we won't leave. We have so rarely dealt with them honestly or consistantly, that they have no reason to believe us.

Lots of human entropy at work. Threatening to eat up more then just a few small places, and a few human lives. That is the thing we call War.