FORUM

Since September 11, the Bush administration has mounted a concerted campaign to prepare the American people for an attack on Iraq. Striking Iraq would further destabilize the Middle East, and would have disastrous consequences for the United States. Moreover, there is no legitimate justification for invading Iraq.

The CIA has been unable to tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. Vice President Dick Cheney speculates about a “potential marriage” between terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Iraq. But no concrete evidence of a link has been forthcoming.

Cheney, who recently went to the Middle East to prime the Arab countries for a military strike against Iraq, found the Arabs much more concerned with ending the bloodshed in Israel. On March 28, the Arab League proposed a political settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. At the same time, the Arabs warned of the danger an invasion of Iraq would pose to the region and, indeed, to the world. The League unanimously declared that an attack on Iraq would be considered an attack against all Arab states.

Without support from the Arab countries, it would be difficult for the United States to mount an invasion of Iraq, as neither Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait will allow themselves to be used as bases for U.S. troops. The killing of Iraqis would result in even more virulent anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. If Iraq responded by attacking Israel, a world war pitting all Arab states against Israel and its supporters might well erupt.

Thousands of American soldiers would be killed, which is precisely what ex-President George H.W. Bush sought to avoid when he stopped short of Baghdad in 1991. John Nichol, of the British Royal Air Force, who was an Iraqi prisoner-of-war during the Gulf War, says “the death toll would have been massive” if the Western forces had marched into Baghdad to capture Saddam Hussein.

Analysts say 100,000 or more American troops would be needed to carry out an operation in Iraq. “Anything short of a ground invasion would run a high risk of failure,” says Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution. “Removing Saddam will be opening a Pandora’s box, and there might not be an easy way to close it back up,” according to Gordon.

A recent Time-CNN poll shows 36 percent of Americans would support bombing, 25 percent favor continuing economic sanctions, 18 percent would like to see Iraqi opposition troops do the fighting, and just 10 percent would endorse a ground war involving thousands of U.S. troops. Moreover, only a handful in Congress would support an attack on Iraq. This is underwhelming American support for Bush’s Iraqi war.

An invasion of Iraq would have a potentially disastrous effect on the U.S. economy. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest supplier of oil, could lead the OPEC countries in an oil embargo, or the price of oil could rise sharply, causing a recession. As the result of saber-rattling by President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair aimed at Iraq, the price of crude has already risen to nearly $25 a barrel, a third higher than last fall. We can no longer count on Saudi Arabia to keep the more militant OPEC members in line by agreeing to pump enough additional oil to keep the price down.

The alleged motivation for an attack on Iraq is to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. However, Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq has said, “There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iraq could have meaningfully reconstituted any element of its WMD capabilities.” Ritter maintains the Iraqis never succeeded in weaponizing their chemical and biological agents to enable them to be sprayed over a large area. Nor has Iraq developed nuclear capabilities, according to Rosemary Hollis, head of the Middle East programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

In spite of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which calls for the creation of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone throughout the Middle East, the United States ignores Israel’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. Ali Muhsin Hamid, the Arab League’s ambassador in London, points to the United States’ double standard regarding Iraq and Israel. “If the Israeli weapons are looked at,” Hamid says, “the Arabs will feel that the U.S. is serious, fair, even-handed and objective.” The Arab countries are mindful that the weapons used by Israel against the Palestinians were made in the USA.

A U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq would also violate international law. Under the U.N. Charter and Security Council Resolution 687, only the Council is empowered to authorize the use of force in Iraq. No mandate for an invasion of Iraq has been forthcoming from the Security Council, whose veto-wielding members include Russia, China and France, all opposed to military action against Iraq.

A preemptive strike against Iraq could not be justified as legitimate self-defense under the U.N. Charter, as Iraq has not attacked a U.N. country. Nor could it be rationalized as a humanitarian intervention. The precipitating factor for the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, is absent in 2002. At the recent Arab summit, Iraq recognized Kuwait as an independent state and vowed not to invade it again.

An attack on Iraq would exacerbate an already volatile situation in the Middle East. The United States must heed the admonition of the Arab countries and help to achieve peace in Israel, not seek to make war on Iraq.

April 5, 2002

———————————————————————
Discussion

JURIST welcomes your reaction to our columns and op-eds...

• Sunday April 07, 2002 at 8:10 pm
  this is fact. this is the first time i read column about iraq , which statesw fact not the usual garbege you read and hear on T V but who is going to lessen Georege bush Jr think he has a phd in intl polacy. He knows nothing and does not want to take any ones advise. genghis khan elkadiri
  
  genghis khan elkadiri
  arab american friendship commitee
  Missouri City Texas 77459-1220

• Sunday April 07, 2002 at 9:34 pm
  Bush has simply labelled others as axis of evil, why does not he lists the acts and conducts of USA which not amounting to acts of evil/trrrorists i.e. gives aids for Israel invade other countries, gives fundings to opposition parties to disstablize the legitimate goverments of other countries, punished others without producing hard evidence,..... many more, obsruct others from building their own self defence i.e. if USA has nuclear capability, every country in this world has every right to build nuclear arms for self defence. If rich person has the right to buy and consume vitamin A for his health, ordinary people cannot be obstructed to buy and consume the same. Iraq not only has the right to have weapon of mass destruction but also has the right to have nuclear arms for his defence against USA aggression. In this world to have fair fight, every thing should be balance, it would stablize the world as occured during cold war.
  
  nawi mohd
  NGO
  Asian.

• Sunday April 07, 2002 at 11:29 pm
  In response specifically to person who signed the letter: nawi mohd NGO Asian You gave no email adress, but I would like to correspond with you directly regarding your comments. I think we have some points for discussion here and would like to start a dialogue. I am an American citizen, resident of the state of Texas and would like to hear from you. my email is redman815@yahoo.com
  
  RiChelle Redman
  Texas/USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 12:02 am
  Immediately after Sep. 11, I urged that Iraq be attacked and taken as a base of theater operations. (If you remember, S. Hussein was reported as gleeful about the attack, and the reports of an El Queda-Iraq contact seemed credible at the time.)
  However, the Bush2 government forfeited its chance at war powers (which Congress would not have been able to refuse) and at an Iraq base. World outrage about the attack and sympathy for us has now passed, especially with Israeli attacks on the West Bank, and an unjustified attack on Iraq would be correctly condemned as U.S. aggression.
  More dangerously, Bush2's "axis of evil" tack very stupidly created a coalition of enemies and alienated many of our allies. (GW apparently gotten an earful during his Asia trip. The South Koreans have gone ahead and reestablished contact with the evil North, which Bush had stopped upon his taking office.)
  If we want the world's nations to trust us with missile defense and strategic hegemony, we must guarantee them fair and equal justice for all -- that we will not take advantage of that and of them for personal profit at their cost and for economic, political, and/or criminal subjugation of them ... as Bush1 assured the Russians in his 1990 letter.
  Instead, we/Clinton/NATO forced the Kosovo war on the Serbs -- see my posting about App. B of the Rambouillet Treaty in the archived JURIST discussion of the Milosevic trial -- and are threatening to attack Iraq, even though there is now no evidence of Iraqi complicity in Sep. 11.
  By betraying our commitment to law and justice for the quick gratification of our overawing military force -- and Iraw would likely fall in 3 days with minimal casualties -- we may panick Chinese and Russian militarists into using the weapons they have while they still can.
  The World Trade Center tragedy brought home the cost of our self-righteousness and hypocrisy -- our "arrogance" -- but it was nothing like the nuclear confrontation, "exchange," and holocaust that will follow an Enron-pressured Bush2's attack on Iraq.
  Where is the "peace movement" in this country when we do need it??
  Thank you, Marjorie Cohn, for the courage of your article.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb IL USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 12:03 am
  It is plain that while Miss Cohn has studied law, she is totally ignorant to historical trends and the conflict that is already going on world wide. Or have you forgotten those who died on 11 September so soon. Make no mistake about it, we are at war already. We should take whatever means necessary to insure the safety of our nation. This will mean the death of U.S. Americans. There is no getting around that. The religous zeal our enemies use must be met with a even harsher zeal to insure their defeat. If that means making the Arab countries of the world upset, so be it. And any country standing in the way and supporting terror should be dealt with extreme military action. This is what our fathers and grandfathers did back in 1941-1945. I think Miss Cohn has forgotten their sacrifice to insure her freedom to make such a pitiful observation on the Mideast and world situation.
  
  Paul Smith
  Or. USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 12:21 am
  A clarification of the above:
  While, despite today's announcement, China would probably not go to war over Iraq, there are indications that the Chinese are again considering a military move against Taiwan. And if we revert to force-rules to take Iraq, we have no moral justification for opposing the Chinese doing the same to Taiwan.
  And if we let the Chinese have Taiwan, Japan will know it cannot trust us to defend it either and will go nuclear. (Most Americans are unaware that our leftist historians have convinced the Japanese that we dropped the atom bombs only to intimidate Stalin or for racist motives (instead of to end the Asian-Pacific war as they did) ... which Japanese nationalists would like to avenge.)
  The Clinton regime's criminality and Bush2 government's stupidity have us on the road to becoming "an alliance of one."
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb IL USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 3:42 am
  I cannot agree with Prof. Cohn. We must remember Sept. 11th. It is, and must be, the basis for our present belligerent policies. But Prof. Cohn is somewhat overwrought: neither the president nor Tony Blair nor any allied leader has announced that any attack on Iraq is imminent. Mr. Blair has just yesterday reiterated the President's most reasonable, and legal, demand: unfettered inspections, as required by the truce that ended the Gulf war. Mr. Hussein has not complied. He must do so. Does Professor Cohn argue that the Iraqi dictator has to comply? No..this makes up no part of her attack upon a peaceloving alliance faced with a continuing war against terror. The secret machinations of a man who has shown that he would stop at nothing to stay in power must and will come to an end, and rightly so. The people of Iraq will be, at last, free.
  
  Jeffrey S. Hightower, Attorney at Law
  private citizen
  Washington, USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 4:27 am
  President Bushes decision to send Colin Powell to the middle east is to little to late. the damage has already been done. the arab people are seething with anger toward israel and the united states. and i believe the suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks will only get worse. at this point it is going to be extremely difficult for the united states to expand it's war on terrorism. also it is seen as a double standard for the united states to fight a war on terrorism and at the same time to tell israel to withdraw from palistinian lands. at the same time how can we expect saddam hussien to comply with u.n. resolutions, when israel doesn't comply US/UN/EU demands. large scale war is coming in the middle east, and bin ladin is smiling. if he's still alive.
  
  John c. Loew
  private citizen
  California, USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 10:17 am
  thanks marjorie, to me the whole thing is absoultely insane, war that is, and motivated by greed, oil, the people in power in usa and other countries involved, i propose that we spend the military money on feeding, education, housing the children of the world, emproving their lives, and toute suite, we would need no military.....annie grannie
  
  annie grannie
  new mexico usa

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 10:38 am
  Does Israel have a right to seeth with anger from the extreme forms of cowardice they have seen in the form of suicide bombers?? One thing you must take into consideration is this. If there was a magic button Saddam H. could push to destroy the USA, it would have been done yesterday. In effect we have that button and could destroy Iraq, but that entire population should not pay that price by any means. Do you people not understand that the Arabs WILL not and CAN not live in peace with themselves.....much less a people (the jews) which they are sworn to kill. For crying out loud, most of the Arabs think Israel bombed us or we BOMBED OURSELVES on 9/11, just to have an excuse to attack them. That is how they think, because their leaders would have no reservation doing that to their own people. I wish I had all the answers, but dialogue with these people is the one thing I KNOW will NOT work. As we speak, the palestinians are only using political channels to get as much as they can before the can create an arab/Israeli war in an attempt to completely destroy Israel. The are so pathetically outgunned tney can't even begin to fight a real war, so the scramble around like with these suicide bombers. It is sad that evil is so permanently entrenched over there, but it is. Believe what you want to help you sleep at night, but "nice talkie, talkie" doesn't work in this world anymore. As for death, that is the worst thing that can happen to us as individuals. If your eternal salvation is secure, then that fear would not be as great. I am in total agreement with the person who stated we must defend ourselves with even more vigor than the cowards who are trying to kill us. I just wonder if you realize that these people would just as soon kill and murder innocent bleeding heart liberals as they would hardline conservatives. If they do, GOD forbid, get a nuke into the USA....do you think they will stop to think they may be killing some sappy, spineless, anti-war liberals in the blast?? No, they will dance with glee on your grave as well.....just a little food for thought. As for Bush, he may not be perfect, few of us are.....and as for the fantasy that Dems don't have their hands in the pocker of big business, you keep on holding that thought. Heck, Clinton decided to "give" military secrets to China.....but I bet all that "free" info still had a price tag. I would hope he learned to conceal his schemes a little better after "whitewater" and "monicagate"..... Have fun in whatever world you live in, Todd M. toddcm@yahoo.com
  
  Todd Malcolm
  OK

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 10:40 am
  Well..I believe both the middle east conflict is now between 2 egos--Sharon and Arafat..both of which have hated each other for more than 20 years..(btw..the UN has a tribunial that just started against Sharon for crimes against humanity for the 82 Slaughter of Palastinians in a Beirut refuge camp) Its rediculous to think that there are good guys and bad guys in this mess..the Iraqi gov, the israeli gov, and the Palastinian Authority are all evil..not the people..the governments need to be dealt with..lets not punish a people for the stupidty of a government that they cant control..i mean we have enough problems with our own politicians..also..if we are to strike anybody who supports terrorism, then we need to look in the mirror..we have terror supporters in this country that have supplied the IRA with guns for more than 30 years..we have given Isreal weapons to "protect" themselves from the stone throwing palestinians who only want to have their land back..and to stop further settlement of their land....what about the drug lords in S America..why cant we have a true war on drugs and wipe them all out? Lets be real here folks..if the US does get involved again with Iraq..its will be all about the oil again..
  
  NW
  US

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 11:09 am
  Stone throwing Palestinians? How about suicide bomb carrying Palestinians. On Saddam, I'm with you; let's just wait until he develops all those neat weapons and have him drop a few on us. You know, maybe kill a few hundred thousand people. Perhaps that would make you happy?
  
  Anthony Savastano
  Georgia/USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 11:17 am
  Why dont we just get out of other countries businesses?!? If they want to war with each other forever, let them. They will be too busy fighting each other to worry about us. We have spent trillions of dollars on defense against a missle attack on the US, lets rely on that a bit shall we. Lets pull out all together, and use what we have for our own people. We have children starving, drugs everywhere, murder, corruption..... When do we start worrying about our own problems?!? The bombing on Sept. 11 was a very tragic reminder that we need to mind our own business. We lose more people to drugs, gangs, child abuse, and drunk driving EVERY year than to that one day. When do we get mad at OUR government for abusing US?
  
  Supporting the US @ home
  Louisville, KY

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 11:24 am
  While your Column has Comments with some merit, your as one sided in your views as the other side. We are not a perfect nation, but we try to be righteous. Yes we have Weapons of Mass Destruction, But we also have the common sense not to be using them. Liberals will commonly bring up, (as do enemies of this country)"That were the only country to have every used WMD in War" Does it matter, that we saved potentially a Million US lives in doing so, that the war wasn't started by us, That we went in and offered medical assistance, that we rebuilt that country to be a contributing partner in world society, No people want to leave that out. The horror of WMD...One bombing raid over Tokoy, in early 1945, Killed more people than Both bombs dropped, Combined. Let's just ask ourselves a question: Do we really think Israel is going to use there WMD in an Offensive Manner? I beleive no or they would have already used them, they've had them for nearly 20 years from the best we can tell. Another Question: Do you think guys like, Saddam would use his WMD? The leaders of countries Like Iraq, have convinced there people that if they die for Ali, they'll receive a hord of Virgins when they go to heaven, they repeatedly strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent civilians. What are you thinking lady. History tends to repeat itself, and it was people like you that had a voice that kept us out of WWII, until we were attacked. That war could have been won in half the time with half the causualties. My point to all this is simple, I have 3 young children, I can already see a time when outlaw nations have WMD pointed at my children, and/or grandchildren. And they'll use them with no fear of us blowing them up next, because they'll beleive there going to heaven so it will be a worthy cause. I would rather take the fight to them now, and prevent the WMD, as long as possible giving our government the time to create technology to usurp their ability to wage war with WMD. It's at least a chance, and it's done on our nickel, and may save my Children one day from wittnessing or worse being a Victim of a WMD. Do you have children? think about it. there are three things that you can't dispute. 1. Legislation may take Prayer out of the school, but when a Crazed gunman enters, Prayer is the first thing that happens, ask the survivors of Columbine. and 2. People arguing Gun control, and the problem with Guns in American society, will be the first ones to wish they had one when faced with a burgular in their home late at Night. 3. You don't have the guts to put this on the web, because you know it's true.
  
  Jeff Rothell
  None
  USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 11:28 am
  There is some background about Iraq that folks here should know. According to UN inspector Scott Ritter, we were -- illegally -- using UN inspection teams for CIA espionage/surveillance against Saddam Hussein and Iraq generally, and Hussein warned that he would kick out the teams if it/we didn't stop.
  When he finally kicked them/us out, we LIED ... to the UN and the rest of the world, not just to Iraq and the American people ... that we hadn't been doing this, and began bombing and blockading Iraq itself ... at the cost of a thousand (est.) civilian deaths from the bombing and far more from malnutrition and deprivation of medical supplies because of our blockade. This is the kind of "arrogance" that has so enraged and mobilized bin Laden and the rest of the nonWestern world against us.
  Before we or anyone else can demand that Iraq reopen itself to inspections, we owe the Iraqi people, the UN, and the world generally not only an apology ... and possible restitution ... for our lie and (ergo) wrongful attacks ... but (more importantly, and this again links with our intent to achieve strategic hegemony) a guarantee -- a modern, precedent- setting Magna Carta -- that we will never betray the world's trust like this again.
  (I haven't seen/read anyone able to refute Scott Ritter's charge.)
  Iraq is the one regional threat to their territorial expansion or even just survival that the Israelis rightly know they can't control -- and only a couple examples of the Israelis' own ruthlessness include the attempt to massacre the USS LIBERTY('s crew) in '67 and Ari Sharon's recently voiced regret (in the best Stalinist jargon) that he hadn't "liquidated" Arafat when he could have. (Yes, there should be a Jewish Home Land ... unless it becomes an ethnic agressor and monster.) And there are a LOT of people -- not just Iraqis -- in the world who need liberating, from terror, including our own. Rural Illinois is being overrun by drug-pushing organized criminals. An Oquawka father was recently murdered and his 12 yr old son left for dead, paralyzed, by an international drug operation's hit team ... yet Bush2's promise of using Patriot Act powers to deal with this escalating tragedy goes unkept ... so that we can get embroiled on the other side of the globe!
  The Democrat leaders of the Enron investigation -- Henry Waxman and Joe Lieberman -- are strong/loyal Israel supporters. If Bush2 has made a political promise to attack Iraq ... even at the risk/cost of starting a world war as I've described above ... for that reason, this is a matter not just of international law but of (inter)national security and SURVIVAL.
  Without truth and international law and justice -- for all -- there can be no peace: there will be war ... and probably obliteration.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb IL USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 11:56 am
  I'm afraid it's you that doesn't know about history Mr. Smith. The history of the world has been that of the western world feeeding off and destroying the rest of the world. Look at South Africa, where Apartheid exists. The western countries have gone in there and stolen the countries diamonds, made slaves of the peoples and now have left those countries to rot. Look at the fallen British Empire, the Queen wears a diamond on her head that was stolen from India and many slaves died fo it. Look at the USA, where the Red Indians are all but extinct. You are not defending yourselves, but attacking. Attacking for greed: oil, gold etc not for humanity and civilisation. The west has always expanded for greed. Take a look at the Bush administration even now, they are trying to push forward for oil drilling in the environmentally protected arctic waste, just so they can get a few more barrels of oil out of it. This is in the US! They are trying to do this quietly, so that people don't notice. You say that you were at war on 9/11, because you were attacked for no reason. You supplied the arms to Israel that killed somebodys mother, children etc. Those people have a right to be angry, just as you have a right to be angry, but supplying the bullet with the left hand and then trying to supply peace with the right does not work. People can see through your facade. Mr. Malcolm, you say the palestinians are "pathetically outgunned they can't even begin to fight a real war". You are so right, but why? It's the western countries that caused the palestinians to disarm, and then gave Israel weapons. How are you supposed to fight if all your options are taken away? The only reason the Israelis don't have suicide bombers now is becasue they have all that military hardware and know the palestinians don't. That's real cowardice. Give the palestinians military hardware as well, make it even and then i doubt you will hear of any sucide bombers again.
  
  Faisal Khan
  UK

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 12:17 pm
  Terrorist acts are a method used by the "little guy" to get the "bully" off his back. If they win - it isn't terrorism. The Native Americans practiced terrorism against settlers. Some say rightfully so. The Boston Tea Party was labelled an act of terorism by the English yet from an American perspective it was justified. The bully in the playground eventually gets his from some smaller kid who attacks from behind and blindsides him - unfair but cheered by all the kids who had suffered at the hands of the bully. Terrorism is born out of hatred and is conquered not by might but by fairness. Our foreign policies are based not on humanity and fairness but on the all powerful dollar. We continue to spread discontent and hatred and then act surprised when we fall victim. We will stop being the victims of terror when we stop terrorizing the rest of the world.
  
  Greg Wright
  Iowa, USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 12:39 pm
  Pax Americana Peace on American Terms. You scream bloody murder about how horrible America is; yet where would you be without America? We have the right to declare war on any person we choose; why? Because European nations would be under the sway of communism without America. Because over half the amount of money being sent to third world nations as a means of relieving suffering is from America. Not Europe; nor Asia, most certainly not the fractatious countries in the Middle East. In 1991, it was the Americans that kept your gas flowing; let's not lie, the liberation of Kuwait had nothing to do with Desert Storm. It was America whom was attacked on September 11; not Paris, not Berlin. It was and is America whom continues to show great patience with the nations of the world whom continiously slander her name. It was America whom stopped the slaughter within the Balkan states; the EU is a lame duck organization which most certainly did not have the ability. Pax Americana; why? Because no one else has the ability. History has shown it, but none of you seem to realize it. Israel has offered the Palestinian Authority over 90% of the land within the West Bank and Gaza strip. The PA rejected it. Whose fault is that? America provides Israel with a vast majority of its arms. Why? Would any other state in the Middle East support America? Doubtfully; if the US were to withdraw all ties from the middle east (including Israel, and assuming there was no dependence on oil) the whole damned place would be fighting one another. It is America that is holding what little peace is there. Not the EU; nor anyone else. Criticism is just, when other nations have done something besides talk; let me know, then you have the right to criticize. Without America any attempt by other nations to hold the peace would be nothing more than guarding there own self-interests. Look at France; they continiously sell military goods to both sides of the conflict (mirage fighters for example). And for the record Faisal; have you ever considerred the age of the bombers? Normally males (though recently females have done it) under the age of 25. Why aren't the supposed leaders of the PA done the same? Why are they not on the front lines with AK-47s? Cowardism? Where are you Faisal? Do you really care, or are you just shooting off your mouth without truly thinking? The leaders are selfish and would rather use the minds of youths whom are easily influenced, rather than get themselves killed. I do NOT blame these youths. I DO blame the supposed leadership; namely the person whom is supposed to be in charge of them, Mr Arafat. We forget that 20-30 years ago he was a terrorist directly responsible for numerous deaths. Yet we let those deaths stand in the attempt of giving him a chance for peace. He (and the PA whom he cannot control) rejected that (remember the 90%?). Do not tell me about suicide bombers whom you regard as heroes. There is no heroism in such things; though it may be perceived as such. Do not talk to me about the "imperialist" american nation whom supports Israel. That same imperialist nation guards your rights whether you acknowledge it or not. Do not talk to me about the war taking place in Israel. War stinks; people die, and the Palestinian leaders bought this on the people they rule. Read your newspapers. Read your history; THEN you can criticize. Until then, Michael kjhinn@yahoo.com
  
  Michael Montgomery
  AR

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 1:20 pm
  Why are we all ruled by fear? The Arabs are right. A war against Irag is a threat to the Arab world, unless or otherwise the military action is Authorised by the UN. The US must concentrate on pressing matters (as in the Israeli Issue!) not speculate about Saddam. One might need to know what Saddam has done in light of the Sep/11th. No evidence has been pinned on him, but Bush is still so adament on launching a military strike against him. An Advice to him.... Beware Mr Bush Jr. You will need more than you can afford to oust Saddam!
  
  Bongo Saucer
  London

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 1:21 pm
  Terrorist acts are a method used by the "little guy" to get the "bully" off his back. If they win - it isn't terrorism. The Native Americans practiced terrorism against settlers. Some say rightfully so. The Boston Tea Party was labelled an act of terorism by the English yet from an American perspective it was justified. The bully in the playground eventually gets his from some smaller kid who attacks from behind and blindsides him - unfair but cheered by all the kids who had suffered at the hands of the bully. Terrorism is born out of hatred and is conquered not by might but by fairness. Our foreign policies are based not on humanity and fairness but on the all powerful dollar. We continue to spread discontent and hatred and then act surprised when we fall victim. We will stop being the victims of terror when we stop terrorizing the rest of the world.
  
  Greg Wright
  Iowa, USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 1:27 pm
  I'm responded to what faisal khan. you must not understand America. The slaves taken from Africa first were the Spanish, they also made slaves of the indians & stole territory. "Red Indians" are not distinct. Let's look at today's problems not history from 100 years ago. That won't settle problems of today. America isn't stupid & isn't inicient of things. What nation or country is? England defininetly isn't. Support your country & your rights but don't knock on America. If you do you belong with the terrorists or with Saddam.
  
  Laura
  US Citizen
  USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 1:28 pm
  Why is it that everyone has a solution to a world disease ( greed) but nothing changes. Are we our brothers keeper?? Or--should we live and let live. My simple solution to the problem is limit corporate power to the country where it was conceived and prevent them from raping the rest of the world of it's resources. Stop supporting the world with bribes $$$ and protect our nation by sending all illegals home as they came with nothing. Live within our means and don't depend on any other nation for our existance. Stop being a world example of prosperity by flaunting our power and wealth thus creating all our problems. Lets return to the doctrine of being a benevolent and compassionate nation willing to help it's own people get out of the social problems facing our nation. Lets focus on being the example not the cause of world destruction.
  
  o.w.Hungerford
  common sense forum
  Gig Harbor Wa.

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 2:10 pm
  To all of you passive supporters of the Middle East countries against the United States, I hope we can round up everyone that doesn't appreciate the US country they live in, and especially if they weren't born here, and ship you to where you can't be a nuisance to this free country. Also, with your lack of support of a country that is trying to defend it's people from a country who will send someone with a bomb straped around them to destroy as many people as possible, imagine yourself in a grocery line with your children and the person next to you has a bomb around them that they detonate and kill you, your children and several other people that live in your neighborhood. Then imagine these countries that hate you so much, whether you feel toward their needs are not, you are an American and they hate and want to kill you with every breath they take just because of your lifestyle that you are able to enjoy. Then imagine that the most precious natural resource that the Earth can provide is at the total control of these countries (Saudi Arabia included-since most of the 9/11 terrorist were Saudi Arabian descent) and they decide they don't want you to have any because you provide military weapons to a country that has had enough crap from this other country that is trying to glorify suicide bombers as much as Japan did kamakaze pilots. I hope you enjoy walking to work since you won't be able to put gas in your car anymore because the price will be so high no one can afford it since they won't sell it to us. Then I hope you enjoy being in the unemployment line and losing your house and most everything else because the recession will be so bad this time that we will never get back on track. Why, because you let these Middle Eastern countries use the only thing they have to offer rule the whole world. You hate the US drilling for oil but we do so because we don't want to be held at bay by these countries that supply this most precious resource and want us dead at the same time. The ironic thing is we are the biggest user of oil, that means we are the entire oil producers of the world's best customer and they treat us like crap. Imagine you treating YOUR best customer or friend that way. I tell you what, the next time you look at the Manhatten skyline, take a good look. The majority of the Middle Eastern people are glad that it looks like that. I hope you passive supporters of a country that wants you dead are glad it looks like that to.
  
  KET
  Georgia, USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 2:14 pm
  To the United States, Iraq is a major problem. Why you may ask. Well to tell you the fact, America has failed to topple Saddam for the last 12 years. That is what Bush2 is ashamed of. he fails to see that he himself is a terrorist and blames others as being one. If he knew what he was doing (he doesn't), he would have stopped the Isreali invasion into the West Bank. All he has to do is withdraw his support for Sharon and effectively Sharon cannot proceed into these attacks. It becomes a win-win situation. Arabs are happy and Bush will be happy since he won't have to get involved again (hopefully). The next important thing is Let Saddam be in power. Ease off the sanctions, atleast so Iraq can improve the living conditions. People are living in a middle of a desert, with no water running in their house. If Bush2 thinks and understands that military strength is not everything. Helping the economic situation would help win the iraqi people's hearths. then he can proceed much more easily to remove Saddam. It will take more than military power to get rid of him. Everyday in the streats of Bhagdad, women go to streets to protest against Zionism, and shout out "We are willing to die for you Saddam" or "Saddam you are our hero" or "We will die fighting for Saddam". Clearly Saddam is a very influential man, particularly if women in the streets say that in Iraq. At the end of the day, unless and until Bush2 does not stop his b**lsh*t about the axis of evil and terrorists abroad, he will not see that he himself is as bad as Osama. Saddam once said that the "consequences of Sept. 11th is the fruits of the American policies that Bush employed in the Middle East". I even wonder if he has a degree in Politics. he just seems that he is the boss. but he is the biggest and baddest loser i have ever seen. If you, Bush2 ever get a chance to read this, remember that you are not the boss. Saddam "is the Hero" and the Arabs will not help you attack their brother, Iraq. They will instead die fighting next to their brother! So beware of what steps you take against the Arab nations. I m now open to any conversations you people will want
  
  SINGHA
  Student
  USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 2:28 pm
  To Faisal Khan : Why is it that the Arab world blames all it's problems on everyone but the Arab world itself ! The reason for terrorism is not the US or Israel, but the corrupt Arab dictatorships that keep most of the Arab world in a standard of living 300 years behind the west. This is why Arab people like yourself do anything possible to leave their home countries and live in the evil western civilations. Such Hypocracy ! Arab nations have no civl rights, no political dissent, and no education except for brainwashing your poor youth to hate the west and Israel. The US had to have two wars to ensure basic freedom and rights for it's people: The Revolutionary war and the Civl war. Until the Arab people do the same for their REAL oppressors (the ones over them in own countries) there will never be any peace.
  
  The Patriot
  Indiana / USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 2:47 pm
  I have to say that i did not expect to find most of the comments ive read here. Im not from the US, although i have some contact with its people, and i can say i have good friends there, as well as in other countries. its a fortunate thing, i think, to have friends in other cultures (to have them in one's own is a lot already). anyway, as most americans know, the opinion about them in the rest of the world is not very favorable, to say the least. Not of the abstract "imperialist american machine", not the abstract "greedy, bad taste corporations", nor of its governors, but of its ordinary citizens. And that is a fact. The main reason for this, i think, putting the ignorance of that who judges in the first place aside, is an attitude that can be exemplified by some of the posts above, which can always be reduced to ignorance. Im not going to go on with facts about the actions of the US government, some already know them, and some will not accept them. what is important is what the american people think about this actions, and about different actions taken in different places, and of a general knowledge of the world, as is, not as how it should adapt to the US. The US may be the richest and most powerful country in the world, but that does not give them the right to anything when it comes to other countries. The US tends to forget that human beings habitate those other countries, and that being poor or meek does not reduce that human-beingness from them at all. What the US has in money and power, it lacks in culture and spirituality, and i can even go ahead and add quality of life, not the confortable quality you get with technology, but that of a meaningful personal life, in relation to one's self and to fellow human beings. That attitude of ignorance, from where arrogance arises in some cases, is most manifest in the american culture when it looks onto itself, or more correctly, when it doen't. Americans never criticize themselves, individually or in group, its not socially acceptable, it breaks the rules of conduct. For most of them the US is the best there is in everything and thats it, no point in discusing it and less in finding out why, it just is. But sometimes self-criticism is the only way to learn and to grow. Anyway, at the beginning i said i did not expect certain posts, the people who write those posts are responsible for the image that the US gives to the world. Those people i think are a minority, and should find a way to speak up, and let their point of view be heard, so the society in general might wake up and see that the make-believe world in which they live is not as pretty as they sell it to them, MHO.
  
  Roberto
  Mexico

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 3:15 pm
  I am quite confounded by American logic. What I hear is of peace and fairness, but What America does is war and injustice. What matters is american interest even that is at the detriment of other Nation. In the Middle East Crisis, AMerica has not show itself to be impartial, this is the kind of attitude that breed terrorism. You give a people no choice and you leave them no other option than to use whateve is available to them the fight for their continue existence. We must stand up and condem evil, whether it be our friend involved or our enemies. As soomeone once said, peace is not the abscence of war, but the presence of justice. SO AMERICA (PRESIDENT BUSH) IF YOU WANT PEACE, THEN PRACTICE JUSTICE TO ALL, NOT A SELECT GROUP OF FRIENDS, OR PERSONAL INTEREST.
  
  Richard Omolade
  USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 4:19 pm
  The Patriot from Indiana USA has "hit the nail on the head"! Based on my readings, most citizens of Arab countries are very dissatisfied with there living conditions/standard of living because most of the wealth in those countries (Saudi Arabia is a prime example) is held by a few while the common masses are left with little or none of the benefits from exportation of oil, primarily, and other products, the proceeds which could be used to improve the standard of living for most Arab citizens. From cradle to grave, the typical Arab citizen is denied adequate nutrition, medical care, housing, education, police protection against crime and terrorism, etc. To prevent themselves from being overthrown, those in power in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia allow their citizens to foment and directly or indirectly support terrorism against countries such as the US with one of highest standards of living in the world to create a scapegoat for their citizens to vent their frustration and outrage. The most tragic effect of this policy is that children in most Arab countries from the beginning of their intellectual life are taught to hate the US and eventually may be brainwashed into taking part in a homicide bombing or other terrorist activites against the US or other peaceful countries. For the most part, Arab citizens, the problem is at home, not in the United States or any other western country! How many of your fellow countrymen, friends, and families have immigrated to the US to improve their standard of living? Have those that have given any thought to returning to their countries and attempting to re-educate those left behind so that they might learn to direct their anger and frustration to those who truly are to blame for their life of misery and hopelessness? As regards the US's current position towards the current Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the US will not soon forget what happened on September the 11th and the fact that over 3,000 US and other citizens died in attacks by Arab terrorists. This is sure to lessen the objectively of the US when addressing the conflict. Finally, while Israel, like the US has made some mistakes in dealing with its Arab brothers, basically, Israel is only fighting to retain what was given to it in 1948 by a certain UN resolution which both the Palestinians and Israel agreed to. Yes in subsequent wars, Israel took some to that territory given to the Palestinians, but it was only after Israel was attacked by the Palestinians, or its Arab allies. As a result of the Arab League conference that took place about a month ago, at the suggestion of Saudi Arabia, Israel appeared somewhat willing to consider returning that territory to the Palestinians and allow the existence of a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, but the Palestinians wanted more. The Palestinians wanted 100% repatriation to Israel which would have meant the end of the Israel state! But before the issues could even be discussed, the Palestinians began the current wave of homicide bombings. This message is directed primarily to individuals who are Arab or of Arab descent. It is not meant to influence the leftist US academia who enjoy the benefits of living in one of the most prosperous countries that to date has ever existed and prizes freedom and equality above all, this leftist academia whose self-validation exists only in criticism of their country. The US is not perfect, but its one of the best places in the world today to live, raise a family, worship, and do what you please as long as its in the legal limits of our law. Perhaps this leftist academia would have preferred to have lived in Afghanistan under the regime of the Taliban rulers. Those were great times, weren't they?
  
  OSJ
  Arizona, USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 4:48 pm
  For the past 50 years US foreign policy has been to involve ourself in other countries business where we have no business to be in the first place.Who do you think runs America? You take a look at Congress, very few people have the guts to criticize Israel without having the Anti Deformation League an illegal loby group, getting involved and making sure that member of Congress is not elected next time. We supply weapons to Israel with a limitation not to be used against a civilian population, what does Israel do, it is using them against the Palistinian population. We give Billions of Dollars of aid to Israel to build "Settelements" and not once have we criticized Israel. There is a very unhealthy relationship between the USA and Israel that is not in our national interest and certainly not for the benefit of the American people.You want to educate your self read:"A Warning to America: A speech by a Patriotic Jewish Businessman" given in 1961. You can find it in the July/August 1999 Barnes Review, that will give you some inside view who is responsible for our problems in this World today aspecially the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Walter von Oettingen An American in Australia
  
  Walter von Oettingen
  Queensland, Australia

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 5:36 pm
  I personally feel that it is time to sever our ties with Israel. We have endured too much hatred from every other country in that region just to ensure that we have an ally there. Countries cannot stay allies forever. Look at us and our other allies, we've been at war with most of them at some point in time. Alliances much change with the times to ensure the protection of our people. It's becoming too much of a liability for us to keep up the double standard that we do in the Middle East. To constantly be carrying on and on about Iraq and Iran's support of terror while we turn our back on Israel's, is absurd. It's got to stop. If we're going to police the whole world, which is rediculous, then police the WHOLE WORLD. The conflict in the Middle East is thousands of years old and it won't be over anytime soon. If ever. It is a wholly war over wholly land. Something, as religeous melting pot, America will never understand. Espescially since many of us have no faith at all. I do not mean to suggest that if we walk away from Israel that all of our problems will disappear. It's too late for that. I just think that we're paying too high a price now, not to mention what may be coming in the future, to ally ourselves with the most openly terrorist country in the Middle East. We condem the "cowards" of terrorism but support the ones whose violence is boastfully broadcast on the evening news every day. Who knows, maybe a little equal justice in the region might even change the minds of a few would be terrorists. We should spend more time and effort lifting all of these countries out of un imaginable poverty (like we should have done with the Afghans after the Soviets pulled out) and not chosing sides in a war that will never be won. Maybe we can change a few minds. It's worth a shot. After all if we just want an "ally" in the region and it is all about money, don't we have the Saudi's for that?
  
  Chadrick Booher
  A concerned American
  Memphis, TN USofA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 6:20 pm
  For all you america haters out there it's this simple....leave...you don't like the way Bush handles his business and think we are treating these countries unfairly...leave...see if you have it better over in the mideast living under a cactus and starving to death, that is the whole problem in this country, a bunch of wimps who want everything to be nice and fair and for there to be special quotas on everything for minorities and women, i say we use that big military spending and if Sadaam wants to fight, lets do it and those who are with him, they can join as well...maybe things will get better here when people start growing some testicals. back in WW2 someone attacked us, and they got BOMBED, but maybe we should just let another tragedy happen before you liberal tree huggers get the point
  
  wes
  USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 6:55 pm
  IM not a lawyer, philospher, just a stuend, but i just wanted to point an interesting fact...where are the women perspectives on this politically delicate matter? Male leaders are so quick to jump to violent means to solve issues. In my dying native american culture, there were two councils to oversee large scale decisions. One of the men with a medicine man as the leader, and another consisting of the eldest women who KNEW the men since their birth...and carried them since their birth. The women will have an advantage in knowing their childs temperment in warefare as well as the costly effect of sending one of their sons into a bloody massacre. I agree with this forum the governments in the world are escalating into an epic episode of Jerry Springer twisted in with The West Wing, most i can deduce is the result of child-like nations squandering for bright shiny idols of power. Currently power equals money, and money right now is in the energy crisis that is nearing its 10 year time limit. On my final note...when i was of a very young age, playing a video game furiously, if i knew i was backed into a unwinnable situation somehow, i would throw a maddening fit and go in to a kill frenzy in the game i was in. This is what i see the world surcumbing to. And why i live near my native homeland at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, learning farming, fishing, and living off of the land independently. In the mean time ill remember what the elders foretold, "the universe will always spin ina circle like the seasons, soon the greedy settlers [of the world] (who always want more) will end up at the bottom of the circle, and the forgotton people, natives, fish, wildlife, plants, rocks, earth, and water will rise to the top of the circle dominating the planet again." The end will come soon i believe, when nukes streak across scarring the heavens. Or as a medicine man said once..."the morning sun, and rising moon will bleed red on us all (nuclear holacaust? pollution?)."
  
  Jeff K
  NM/USA

• Monday April 08, 2002 at 7:19 pm
  We tried the isolationist theory prior to WWII, that really worked well. I for one, know that our government has corruption, only a fool would believe otherwise. I don't know how to cure it, I wish I could.....I do, however, know that this is the most compassionate, free, and rights conscience country in the world. That is just a fact. Are we the best, who knows....as for our attempt at westernizing the world....I, for one, am sickened at what is coming out of holywood and being put on TV these days. If people got more active in responding with action about how they feel and not just talking about it.....things just might change. I don't go to certain movies, watch certain tv shows, by certain music, use certain company's products, etc. That is not much, but it IS one thing I can do in addition to voting. I agree that things aren't perfect, but you show me another place that people are willing to risk their lives to enter. There must be something worthwhile about our country. Do you think that Pres. Bush is just waiting for a few people to assemble and voice their displeasure....just so he can use a nuke or mustard gas on them to make a public example of his power?????? You paint him like some sort of villian, what about Saddam, he is a caring guy and that is why people publicly support him.....lol. You know what, if you gather and form a march on his palace let's just say....well.....that will be the last thing you EVER do. As far Saddam's motives with WMDs. Let us look at a little scenario (this won't apply to any of you that don't believe in weapons) what if a guy that you just saw on America's Most Wanted for string of murders shows up in your living room at night. You just happened to grab your gun before you went to investigate. This guy sees you and.....lets say a large knife on laying on the table within arms reach. I am going to shoot the guy BEFORE he picks up the knife.....WHY you may ask....well....I know he is a criminal and I am pretty damn sure he is going to try and use that knife if he picks it up. My theory is, he has already infringed upon others in the past (i.e. see Kuwait) and he will have no reservation trying to use anything in the future to his advantage. I have a gun, I know how to use it, and I feel that using it now is the safest thing for me and my household. If you don't think Bush is acting on the behalf of all Americans, then I feel you do need to leave and throw in with those innocent souls who we are trying to stop from committing unspeakable acts against us and our allies. As for a hundred years ago, what can we do to make amends for any wrong doings that occured back then?? That is a moot point. Todd M. OKC, OK
  
  Todd M.
  USA

• Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 11:48 am
  I love this country and hence am disgusted with Bush's simplistic handling of all issues. He was selected by the Supreme Court in a judicial coup. Loving the country does not mean we have to support who ever is in charge no matter what mistakes they make.
  
  JH
  CA, USA

• Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 1:41 pm
  In truth, I think, we have no idea what would happen in the Middle East if we pulled out and let them handle their own problems. Because that has never happened. We help the Isralies why? Because we believe that they are being picked on. So what, it is not our concern. We did not have this country of ours given to us on a silver platter. We TOOK this country, and then made it what it is today. Isreal may be taken, who knows. But if they are meant to be overthrown, then that is the way it is meant to be. We should stay out of everyone's business, and THEN if we are attacked we will have every right to defend ourselves with a clear conscience. Terrorism starts as propaganda and then escalates to death. Lets stop worrying about THEIR starving people and start worrying about OURS! Lets make allies in THIS country. We have people living in cardboard boxes right here at home. Knowing and admitting that makes me a good American. Having my own opinion makes me a good American. And showing that I do not agree with our Foreign Policies certainly makes me a good American. Because these are my rights to do so. Clean your own house before you try to clean someone elses.
  
  bc
  Louisville, KY

• Thursday April 11, 2002 at 11:23 am
  British PM Tony Blair's refusal to support our attacking Iraq (unless Saddam Hussein does something stupid/vicious enough to justify it, of course), reflects the deepening "unease" in Parliament about our military intent, as evidenced by Early Day Motion 927, passed just before Blair's visit to Texas:
  EDM 927 MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ 04.03.02
  Mahon/Alice
  That this House is aware of the deep unease among honourable Members on all sides of the House at the prospect that Her Majesty's Government might support United States military action against Iraq; agrees with Kofi Annan that a further military attack on Iraq would be unwise at this time; believes that such a course of action would disrupt support for the anti-terrorism coalition among the Arab states; and instead urges the Prime Minister to use Britain's influence with Iraq to gain agreement that United Nations weapons inspections will resume.
  I was happy to see that that my longtime strategy gaming friend (and Blair loyalist) Nick Palmer was among the signatories: something political we can agree on.
  As to whether or not the Bush government will still attack Iraq without sufficient justification, it is hard to predict at this point. Netanyahu's speech yesterday was (unexpectedly and misguidingly) persuasive -- with the omissive assistance of our media, of course -- and Bush feels pressure to do something ... anything.
  I have read that military operations against Iraq must be mounted before the prohibitive surface temperatures starting in May, so we shall soon see what happens ... or not. Maybe sanity will prevail after all.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb IL USA

• Tuesday April 30, 2002 at 11:12 pm
  The United States needs no approval from the U.N. to attack any country. There are discrepant reports about the level of capabilities Iraq has developed with weapons of mass destruction since the Gulf War. I guess it boils down to whether you think we, or anyone in the world, can afford to trust a man like Saddam Hussein with his finger on the trigger of some nuclear, radiological, or bio-chemical weapon. If you can't, then an attack to eradicate that level of capability and remove Hussein from the trigger may be the only just and practical thing to do - with or without Arab cooperation.
  
  Timothy S.
  Highlands Today
  FL/USA

• Thursday May 02, 2002 at 11:13 am
  Tim S., the Chinese have WMD capability far more dangerous to us and have shown themselves actively hostile to us ... by arming Iran with Silk Worm missiles, etc. They now control the Panama Canal, and Egypt's President Mubarak -- enraged at us, feeling we have betrayed MidEast moderates by our new unconditional support for the Israelis -- made arrangements to see the Chinese prime minister on the very day he refused to see SecState Colin Powell ... which could give them influence over/in the Suez as well.
  Are you suggesting we have the right to attack China too then? ... because our "force-rules" doctrine certainly implies that to the Chinese.
  Bush linked Asia with the MidEast with his "axis of evil" statement/blunder. The more talk like yours the Chinese hear, the more tempting a (massive thermonuclear) first-strike becomes to them. And Chinese missiles can reach Sebring right now.
  Be careful of what you want, Timothy, lest you get more (war) than you expect. Bush and his amigos may have already set something in motion we now can't stop ... but some of us are still trying.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb IL 61455

• Friday May 03, 2002 at 8:56 pm
  Thanks for your comments, Lou. I don't think we have a "force-rules" doctrine. What we do have is that there comes a point where employing our military forces makes more sense than not. Perhaps the most obvious lesson from history is Hitler, who never understood when enough was enough. We (the world, i.e. France and Britain) redrew our line in the sand, and every time we did, Hitler grew bolder. My point is only that in the case of Hussein, a particular leader at a particular time in history, we have to ask ourselves if we can afford NOT to attack him. What are the consequences to the world if we do not do anything to him. He is chomping at the bit to rid Iraq of sanctions, and he wants a weapon he can use any time against anybody: Iran, Israel, the U.S. for whatever he considers a legitimate use. Regardless of what you may think of the Chinese, there are only a few reasons to possess weapons of mass destruction: to deter someone else from attacking, to have the overwhelming capacity to attack while preventing counterattack, or to have the power to hold over the head of someone to get them to do what you want. Hussein, a wild card, presents a fourth option: an irrational desire to just do something nasty, like getting rid of Israel once and for all. A "massive thermonuclear first strike" from China alone would be a noirish joke. China would not survive, and probably not anyone in the rest of the world. They do present a critical security concern, as does Russia, but I thinnk it is more in other areas than a plain thermonuclear attack.
  
  Timothy S.
  Highlands Today
  FL/USA

• Saturday May 04, 2002 at 9:34 pm
  Tim, I agree with you that there must be "intrusive" inspections of Iraq as part of any overall settlement an international conference (Colin Powell has proposed). Will you agree that Israel should, in fairness, accept equally intrusive WMD inspections ... and elimination of any such weapons found as well?
  Again, we Americans look at this very one-sidedly and self-righteously. And as to the Chinese, it's the People's Liberation Army that calls the shots, ultimately, over there -- not the civilian "capitalist" politicians -- and they're even more steeped in their own propaganda and mindset than the Bush bunch. I think the PLA warlords do think a nuclear first-strike on us is possible/winnable ... whether or not you, I, and the rest of the world know that is MADness ... and I believe our Pentagon analysts realize the danger, even if Bush and our civilian politicians don't.
  Taiwan is a central issue for the Chinese, and if we decide to take out Iraq militarily, rather than politically/ diplomatically with world consensus, they are ready to go to the same irreversible mode.
  Good to hear back from you. I appreciate your willingness to speak forth. If you like strategic games, you might like the free ones on my webpage at http://LCoat.tripod.com
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb Illinois USA

• Monday June 24, 2002 at 7:48 am
  or check www.dominategame.com It is a Dutch site, made by a student, it is a risk clone and it may seem too simple for you, can't be compared to your board games i think. However it can be great fun playing the game. There are thousands of players from all over the globe. Also the forum on that site may use some intelligent remarks. Maybe you should take a look.
  
  B.J.G. Rentrop
  The Netherlands

• Monday June 24, 2002 at 7:48 am
  or check www.dominategame.com It is a Dutch site, made by a student, it is a risk clone and it may seem too simple for you, can't be compared to your board games i think. However it can be great fun playing the game. There are thousands of players from all over the globe. Also the forum on that site may use some intelligent remarks. Maybe you should take a look.
  
  B.J.G. Rentrop
  The Netherlands

• Saturday July 20, 2002 at 5:34 pm
  Congressman Henry Hyde from Illinois -- who led the impeachment effort against Clinton -- has said that the Bush government should not attack Iraq without adequate justification and Congressional approval.
  This reveals moderate (Republican) Congressional awareness of the significance/danger of an unwarranted attack. And, clearly, for the President to do so would be an unConstitutional exceeding of his powers -- especially since he didn't ask for war powers upon/after Sep. 11, as he should have.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb Illinois USA

• Monday July 29, 2002 at 12:33 pm
  Submitted to the BBC website for comments in response to the article about Jordan's King Abdullah warning us off from attacking Iraq:

  King Abdullah is right! If we attack Iraq and revert from the rule of (international) law to force-rules, we will have no moral or legal right to oppose China attempting to take Taiwan by force now. (And Bush linked the Mideast and Asia with his "Axis of Evil" mis-speak.)
  The The People's Liberation Army still calls the shots in China -- not the pseudo-capitalist politicians -- and its warlords are prepared to *use* nuclear weapons.
  And if we let them have Taiwan, Japan will go nuclear: a neo-militarist Japanese politician claims it could have 4,000 warheads in a year -- in which case we're *all* dead.
  The planet does not revolve around the Mideast; it revolves around our shrinking icecaps -- even if the petrocrats and Israel Lobby which dominate our country are too stupid and self-obsessed to understand that.
  Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde -- who led the impeachment effort against Clinton -- has warned that an attack on Iraq must be clearly justified and only done with Congress' approval. If Bush attacks nonetheless, he will be clearly (and criminally) exceeding his presidential powers ... as well as starting World War 3.
  My thanks to Britain's Members of Parliament who signed Early Day Motion 927, expressing your deep unease about Bush/Lieberman's intended aggression against Iraq.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb Illinois USA

• Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 1:56 pm
  I would think our invading Iraq without adequate justification would constitute a war crime which the ICC would prosecute -- with or without our cooperation.

  While the world community -- from which we are becoming more isolated every day -- isn't powerful enough to come into the U.S. and arrest someone, being internationally wanted could certainly curtail a president's international itinerary.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb Illinois USA

• Saturday August 17, 2002 at 6:40 pm
  Yesterday, Israel came out publicly asking us to attack Iraq. This seems to indicate that the Israel lobby (alone) has not been successful in pressuring Bush to attack. It confirms Iraq as an election issue for the media and Middle East -concerned Americans. Of course, if the President does now attack Iraq, he will validate our international image of being controlled by the Israel lobby and will alienate us even further from the world community ... if that's possible. The only way Republicans are going to survive this election is by counterattacking the Iraq-war-mongerers, ergo the Israel lobby. I don't think the national security community is eager for this war.

  And Russia just announced a $40 billion trade/etc. agreement with Iraq. I hadn't thought Russia intervening against us to be a threat, but now it is a distinct possibility. It also implies Putin himself is prepared to oppose us, regardless of whatever economic incentives/blackmail we are trying to use against him. Meanwhile, in Serbia, the (anti-American) supernationalist party is reportedly growing. The Serb nationalists are being described as "racist" by Western journalists whose own anti-Serb rhetoric might better qualify for that smear.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb Illinois USA

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 12:29 am
  The death of Abu Nidal is an important development -- and it was achieved without invasion.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb Illinois USA

• Saturday August 24, 2002 at 3:08 pm
  It is the process of law which is at stake and if US is going to jump in to everybodies soverignity, that would amount to unlawful act. This ofcourse give way to a new sort of politics which open the boundries of political state and a continous state of open cold war. We should take in to notice that for such sort of initiations a large number of countries need to be on one side, which they are not. UN has been made to tackle such matters and if not then what is the point in having such organisation. We should be respecting the soverignity of other countries and let the process of law be followed. You can not just point at some body and say that you are culprit. Think about poor people of Iraq.
  
  Saghir Munir
  Pakistan

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 5:43 pm
  Again, "sovereignty" died at Hiroshima and with the melting icecaps, Saghir. The World Trade Center also demonstrated to us all that what happens elsewhere in the world does indeed impact us here.
  Bush's claim today that he doesn't need Congressional approval to attack Iraq should provoke a Constitutional crisis -- and his possible impeachment -- unless the impeachment of Clinton was just partisan politics, after all.
  Henry Hyde must say "Impeachable Offense."
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb IL USA

• Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 11:08 pm
  Mr. Bush in attacking Iraq is breaking international law. His case for doing so is illogical, and panders to the lowest common denominator. Both he and Saddam validate bullies everywhere!! Saddam makes the citizens of his country and his neighbours afraid . G.W. Bush makes westerners and other world leaders afraid. He makes me think of the kids who robbed you of your lunch in the school yard. They did it because they were bigger and could. He is doing it because he is powerful and can. Talking about using power for "good" If you are not with us, then you are against us" Please? How profound and statesman like is that? World leaders are afraid to voice their opinions due to fear of reprisals from W. How then is he different from Saddam? At least Saddam does not go around espousing "democracy", while he tramples on the freedom of choice of others. The hypocrisy is astounding! The attack on Iraq is nothing but "armed robbery". Why buy Iraq's oil when you and your gang of bandits/allies can just go in under the guise of "liberating the Iraqis" and steal it? And to think, America once stood for what is just and honourable. Oh well, onward to the crusades, damn the slaughtering of innocents! Christians, (westerners), have mounted campaigns/crusades to demonize and slaughter the innocent in the name of God and greed before, nothing new here. Concerned Citizen.
  
  Concerned citizen of the world
  n/a
  Canada

• Tuesday October 29, 2002 at 3:43 am
  I agree and feel it is very wrong to go back over there now! Bush is just trying to clean up and finish what his father did't! There are far more and worst threats to this country than Iraq. I also served in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm, i think we had reason then, we don't now!
  
  Jeff
  college student
  Richmond, Indiana

• Monday November 04, 2002 at 11:56 am
  I think this is very good information about Invading Iraq and what other people's point of views are. Thank you for all of the info.
  
  Brandie
  IA, USA

• Monday February 10, 2003 at 9:34 pm
  I have heard the word propaganda mentioned so many times. So many people have so many different views on the reason for the current situation in Iraq. Most of our views are have been determined from information we have researched. Where do you think that information filters from in the first place? We look at the news, we read the papers, etc. You also find that a lot of the views do duplicate themselves, because we are all supplied with the same information and we make of it what we will. Yes, I have view too, but it is only the leaders and governments of the various countries who really know the truth and they use the people of the world like pawns on a chess board. We need to find out exactly what the problems are and the governments need to be honest with their people. They need to start doing some straight talking, not the usual political diplomacy B***ocks that is constantly used by these politicians. I do agree and disagree with a lot of things that I hear, but am I acting on incorrect information to begin with? The only information the public will receive, is the information that politicians and intelligence will allow you to see. They are all a bunch of liers, looking out for their own careers and not the benefit of the people. Why do we always say "Why can't they sort out some of the terrible problems within our own country, instead of giving benefit elsewhere to other countries and refugees and imigrants"? The answer is that THEY WANT YOUR VOTE! They fear they will not get your vote or receive business from another country if they DO feed you the factual and correct information. I agree with what one person said on this site, "why doesn't America and Britain pull out of what does not directly concern us?" We end up helping people all the time with one disaster after another. All this is turning the world against each other, which is what the terrorists want. For them it is big business(The terrorists). So the more upset and confusion, the more they have the excuse to be there and have bones with certain countries. What would these terrorists do if everything was sorted out in the world and they had nothing to whinge about? The answer is, they would find something, I guarantee it! So really all this is for no gain whatsoever, because we don't even know that the information we have is correct or made up? You can rest assured, before it comes out on the news, it is made to look as bad as possible. When the politicians speak they never answer a question with an answer, just another question? I just think the whole world is confused!
  
  Michael
  UK

• Wednesday February 12, 2003 at 8:22 pm
  First things first. I have been undercover in Iraq off and on for a long time. The people there are against Saddamm they just cannot due anything about it. What do you think now that the Bin Laden tapes are out, no connection with terrorism now. I laugh. And finally, the American soldier is going to fight not you. Ask them what they think then listen. They are happy and want to go. You people just run your mouths about things you Know nothing about. Your ideas are all on speculation. Set back and look at facts for once. They are going to hit us again wether we do an attack or not. I strongly urge all of you to rethink your patronage. Then i would think about moving to one of these country's for awhile and actually living like they do, under these peoples control, it will change your mind. Korea is the same way. The only people in Korea that hates America is the Army and Govt. The people love Americans, but you never know that until you go there. Korea will have to fall or they are going to start a war and kill as many people as they can. Thats just what they want to do. Try and think of a Ted Bundy that actually got to run a country. Now i am serious here think about it. I am just trying to relate what i have been thru and what i have seen. Now i do agree with not pouring so much money into so many other countries. And yes the fact that France and Germany arent backing us does upset me. We have carried them thru there tough times, finacially and everything els. If we pulled our military out of those countries, 10 years and they would be like the Russians, broke. I do believe and have fought for free speech, so not knocking anyone, tho, alot of younger generations read and hear without investigation. Please speak your peace but lets know what we are talking about. thanks.
  
  Stars and Bars forever
  USA

• Wednesday February 12, 2003 at 8:23 pm
  First things first. I have been undercover in Iraq off and on for a long time. The people there are against Saddamm they just cannot due anything about it. What do you think now that the Bin Laden tapes are out, no connection with terrorism now. I laugh. And finally, the American soldier is going to fight not you. Ask them what they think then listen. They are happy and want to go. You people just run your mouths about things you Know nothing about. Your ideas are all on speculation. Set back and look at facts for once. They are going to hit us again wether we do an attack or not. I strongly urge all of you to rethink your patronage. Then i would think about moving to one of these country's for awhile and actually living like they do, under these peoples control, it will change your mind. Korea is the same way. The only people in Korea that hates America is the Army and Govt. The people love Americans, but you never know that until you go there. Korea will have to fall or they are going to start a war and kill as many people as they can. Thats just what they want to do. Try and think of a Ted Bundy that actually got to run a country. Now i am serious here think about it. I am just trying to relate what i have been thru and what i have seen. Now i do agree with not pouring so much money into so many other countries. And yes the fact that France and Germany arent backing us does upset me. We have carried them thru there tough times, finacially and everything els. If we pulled our military out of those countries, 10 years and they would be like the Russians, broke. I do believe and have fought for free speech, so not knocking anyone, tho, alot of younger generations read and hear without investigation. Please speak your peace but lets know what we are talking about. thanks.
  
  Stars and Bars forever
  USA

• Thursday March 27, 2003 at 7:49 pm
  Interesting to remember that the in article heading this dated only a year ago only 10% of the US population favoured war (slightly less than in France & Germany now). This shows the power that continious pressure exerted by a modern political leader has, even in a democratic society.
  
  Neil
  UK

• Thursday April 10, 2003 at 10:05 pm
  In the recent times I feel that President Bush has done the right thing by going to war with Iraq. The people of Iraq are afrraid to speak up against their dictator. Americans should be happy that we can protest against our president's actions without being fearful that our families with be hurt. What we fail to remember is that it was due to a war that we established these freedoms. So like the old saying goes "he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones".
  
  Jenny
  USA

• Thursday April 10, 2003 at 10:09 pm
  In the recent times I feel that President Bush has done the right thing by going to war with Iraq. The people of Iraq are afrraid to speak up against their dictator. Americans should be happy that we can protest against our president's actions without being fearful that our families with be hurt. What we fail to remember is that it was due to a war that we established these freedoms. So like the old saying goes "he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones".
  
  Jenny
  USA

• Friday April 02, 2004 at 2:07 pm
  I think that we shouldnt have becuase there are other people that can help them plus all the money that we are spending to rebuild it
  
  Scott
  High school student
  usa