http://www.fiiq.qc.ca/coll_eag/actions.htm

How much point is there fighting terrorism by warring against nation states? Islam specifically is opposed to answering to any secular law, only to the word of the lord. As Islamic fundamentalists they aren't attached to nation states won't they just move and meld and never be found? Which makes me curious about the links between Al-quaida and Iraq to date, and just hoping theres more information not being mentioned.

Why is our way of life so hated by these people? Is there some room for compromise on our part? Why aren't we having more dialogue with them to see why they hate us so much?

Is there any chance you'd dissarm with the US building up troops just outside your border? I'd feel like a lamb going to the slaughter... What is the difference between the US test firing the 'mother of all bombs' against korea test firing into the japan sea. The background to the top analyst who quit the Australian intelligence force by the way, is that he thinks what we are doing is goading Saddam to use the weapons of mass destruction. I can't see there being much of good I told you so type feeling if he does.

Why do our leaders think that other countries are so different to us? How does an attack on the US vary from an attack on Baghdad if you are the poor guy on the street corner who gets killed?

Why has Australia decided that Saddam is an evil that we must get rid of after we given Iraqi refugees so much crap when they try and flee here. If it's been evil all this time.

I keep thinking of the US ambassador saying "well if it was about oil we would ahve just seized the kuwait oil fields at the end of the last war". Did that even seem sensible as it came out of his mouth? Really.

My dad was evacuated from Hungary during WWII, through France to England. He still visits the french people who sheltered him (and risked there lives sheltering a jew). In the villages there is still a lot of memories of WWII, and a lot of stories about what happens in war. I think this is a part of the french psyche that not many people consider. But it fits strangely with some of the aggressive actions they have taken.

Why isn't there an permanent Asian member of the UN security council? A different voice in the debate.

I don't understand why India isn't a permanent member - it does, after all, account for a fifth of the world's population.

Your dad must have an amazing perspective on war. It's so hard even to imagine an experience like that. On a side note, I saw on the BBC news last night that a 94 yr old ex-stockbroker has just been knighted for saving several hundred Czech Jewish children from the Nazis by smuggling them out to Britain. He never told anyone what he'd done - it only came to light when his wife found a briefcase full of papers about the children. That's heroism.

I don't want to have to explain to my little girl that the US is killing other little girls' daddies for no good reason (at least not a good enough reason for me)and because I don't think this will be a quick conflict, I will have to do that.

I am scared that this war will cause more terrorism throughout the world and selfishly that DC will be a target again. I don't think I will get so lucky to not personally know anyone again or that it could be me and B or SB and Q.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophie:
China is a permanent member. I think they're shitting themselves that if Bush gets another term, they could be next.

I don't understand why India isn't a permanent member - it does, after all, account for a fifth of the world's population.

Your dad must have an amazing perspective on war. It's so hard even to imagine an experience like that. On a side note, I saw on the BBC news last night that a 94 yr old ex-stockbroker has just been knighted for saving several hundred Czech Jewish children from the Nazis by smuggling them out to Britain. He never told anyone what he'd done - it only came to light when his wife found a briefcase full of papers about the children. That's heroism.

[This message has been edited by Sophie (edited 03-12-2003).]

---

Oohhh just checked out the www.un.org and youre right!

And dad is more the "can't talk about it, can't relate to anyone" too much damage done type of model, but I think that too much damage was done early on...

I'm scared. Saddam is all "if you invade my country, I will fight you wherever there is land, water or air." Augh! Why are we baiting the goddamn bulldog! If you want him to calm down, don't wear a suit made of sausage! Uh. Whatever that means.

I am concentrating my psychic powers on getting someone on the security council to convince bush and saddam to just have a big fight with nerf weapons and settle things. No holds barred! Okay well no lawn darts!

So chrétien says canada is staying out of it. No UN support = no canada. Humanitarian aid when that's safe, but no bombs. That's some small comfort. Not that canada's military would affect things much either way, but it's one more small piece of moral legitimacy that bush is lacking, I guess. Usually chrétien just waffles forever and finally caves.. but this time he waffled and finally held firm.

Ladies and gentlemen of the American public, I am speaking to you tonight about the ongoing crisis in our nation's capitol. For three years now a small shell of a man has been purveying a rein of terror on the god-fearing, good people of his county. Through a relentless campaign of ineptitude and intimidation he has been paralyzing a nation in anger and fear that his own callousness and vainglory might jeopardize all that we hold dear. These are the acts of a coward. America will not be controlled by anger over bad presidents or fear nuclear holocaust. We will continue to stand tall and ignore all that bad shit and just wait till his term is over, as there is jack squat we can do about it. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by idiots and morons.

Good night, and may George Bush continue to god bless his empire and may I continue to not give a damn.

1) I am not an advocate for war... right now. There is no reason we could not have accepted the UN proposal of waiting 60 days... then war.

2) Bush pushed for the UN inspectors in December. We got it, they were successful, but we go to war anyway. It is clear that he never really wanted inspectors in the first place.

3) There is a book called "The man who would be president of Iraq", written by a former CIA member. He says that Bush will pretty much be ruler of Iraq after the war. The question: What will he do with that power?

4) The real reason for this whole thing is because of oil, and a rebalancing of the middle east. They may not have miltary power, but they have economic power, and getting a foothold in Iraq will change the landscape for decades to come. Bush knows this and has used the 9/11 as an excuse to get a foothold there. Think about it. From a warmonger point of view, Bush is making the correct strategical decision. From an ethical point of view, it is not as clear.

5) The French will come around. All of Europe will because they will all want a piece of the pie. Is it worth it? I would say no, because it makes everyone think that we are the bully. What would happen if all of Europe gets their shit together stops trade with us? They are really big enough and have enough different resources to not really depend on us if they needed to. Sooner or later, all this war stuff will come back to bite us in the ass.

6) The middle east is a hop and skip away from Europe, another reason they are so skittish. If Iraq was connected to North or South America, I honestly believe that the EU would not care as much. After all, if a foreign power wanted to invade Mexico, we would be alarmed -- not because we really care about Mexico, but because they are too close to us physically.

7) More terrorist acts coming. You just wait and see. I doubt our little towns will matter much though. The big cities on the East and West coasts better watch out.

8) North Korea is the wildcard here. They have no food left. They are deperate, and have the 3rd largest army in the world, contantly in "invade-mode". They are mobilized and ready. When is the best time to attack the South? The day the US invades Iraq. Makes perfect logistical sense to me. Hopefully they will be smart enough not to.

9) My friend has been looking for a job for a year now. What does war mean? Another year or two of job hunting I'm afraid...

I read this today on Madame Insane and thought it might be of interest.

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since
the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide- attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory
in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely....unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest.
This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can
reach the West Coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

Copy, paste, post.

Here's a report on the Iraqi solders: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6155817%255E25777,00.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bjerica:
This morning I've heard news regarding the fire fight (reported in the link Lis posted), captured Iraqi soldiers, the bombing of anti-air craft towers & mobilisation of troops into Iraq.

Here's a report on the Iraqi solders: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6155817%255E25777,00.html

---

http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749853834.html

Thursday, March 20, 2003 ::