A (legitimate) question for Hal, Marauder or any other European member...

[Dave2112]

I'm hoping someone out there with knowledge on this matter can help me out. I'm not being a smart-ass or anything, I'm legitimately curious about something and you guys are in a better position to respond.

Why is it that the Americans are getting the brunt of the bad feelings from the anti-war sect? There are many nations involved, and many more that support the coalition in non-military ways. What is the general "feeling on the street", so to speak, toward England, Spain, Australia, Poland and others in the general populations of Germany, France or other non-supporting nations?

No set-up here for a tounge-lashing, I'm honestly curious about this.

 

[Marauder]

America gets the brunt of the emotional fisting because the U.S. political leaders have behaved like a crazed elephant on speed in the pottery shop of international relations. Saying the U.N. is irrelevant and all that, pushing for a war with no clear agenda other than "Iraq BAD, HULK SMASH" dressed up really purty - That kind of thing. Just a little more diplomacy would have been a boon to international relations that have been pretty good before all this crap.

Also, the fact is that the feeling of helplessness before the great stampeding U.S. causes many folks here to look across the ocean and say "Oh shit. They're going bananas, have more soldiers than any of us combined, carry nukes and deploy orbital death-rays. We can't stop them if they completely loose it and decide to burn evryone who disagrees with them into a smoldering cinder. Folks, we're fucked."

Plain old fear and apprehension. Leads to distrustful anti-sympathy every time.

 

[Dave2112]

Ok, I guess I expected that...and can even understand it to a degree. But half of my question goes unanswered. What is the feeling toward the other nations involved with the US? Is there inter-Europe tension starting anywhere, or is this pretty much directed at the US? And if so, what is the feeling toward the others....that they joined in out of fear? Stupidity? Naivete?

Again, just curious.

 

[Marauder]

There are a lot of tensions in Europe. Always were. This latest conflict has shifted the tides somewhat. For example, I think the French like us Germans better now. But how exactly the relations between the European states are, I cannot say. It's all pretty jumbled up right now, and eyes are on the middle east, not our neighbors. Time will tell. When the European Union is expanded, we're going to see sparks, that's for sure.

 

[TicklingDuo]

Marauder (or whatever Euro member)...

Is this really how we're presented over there? If so, who is it that presents us in this light? It sounds very much like what some of the media over here was spewing out...calling us "war mongeres", etc. Do the people even know that the vast majority of people in the US did NOT want this war? And that those who went along only did so because they saw the threat as real? And that we'd been trying to eliminate the threat through diplomatic means since the FIRST gulf war? If we were what we're being presented to be, wouldn't we have just nuked the place and lost none of our own men?

I'm not trying to be arguementative or anything...just trying to understand why people see us this way. I relaize that we are seen as having the strongest and most technically advance military. But, why does that make us such a threat when we've only used that might to defend ourselves and others? Or don't people see that as being what we're trying to do?

Ann

 

[Marauder]

I doubt that the majority of people over here sees the U.S.A. as a threat. Most are just pissy because, well, seeing a big bully stomping across the sandbox, kicking sandcastles over and stealing sandshovels when there's no mommy around to run crying to upsets folks. Especially when there IS a mommy, but the big bully is bigger and stronger than Mrs. U.N., and so she stands by while he thumbs his nose at the other kids... you get the idea.

The biggest problem is that a certain demographic group, the Vocal Minority, in the U.S. is primarily heard over here (yep, we have propaganda, too!) And things like painting "Phuck the Phrench" on grenades and that stupid "Freedom Fries" issue, calling Germany "cowards" and "traitors" and calling for the bombing of european countries, especially France... That's not the best way to get folks here to be really relaxed and friendly and chill and stuff.

Personally, I'm not afraid of the U.S. If you guys try to bomb Germany, we'll answer with our solar grenades and genetically engineered baby-eating super soldiers... (Playing too much FPSs)

 

[TicklingDuo]

I guess we're more alike than people like to admit. The loudmouthed hotheads always seem to be the ones heard, while the vast majority are ignored. Sad, isn't it?

Ann

 

[Marauder]

Yes, very sad. It's one of the reasons for all those wars.

 

[Haltickling]

Dave

Why is it that the Americans are getting the brunt of the bad feelings from the anti-war sect? There are many nations involved, and many more that support the coalition in non-military ways. What is the general "feeling on the street", so to speak, toward England, Spain, Australia, Poland and others in the general populations of Germany, France or other non-supporting nations?

Dave, two of the reasons were already given by Marauder. I can’t speak for the population of other ‘non-aligned’ countries, but I think I’ll try to reply for most of the Germans.

America started off this war, so it’s seen as predominantly responsible for it. Tony Blair is mostly seen as Bush’s puppet; he certainly didn’t have a majority of Brits behind him when the war started. This has changed a bit, mainly as support for the British troops in Iraq. War always awakens patriotic feelings, even in people who don’t give shit for politics in general and Blair’s Labour Party in particular. The Australian issues are not very well known here, but I assume that people find it quite natural that Australia supports its old WW2 allies Britain and America. Poland suffered a lot under the Soviet regime, and they always saw America as their main ally against communism, so their support is understandable. And I think that most Germans are shaking their heads about the disrespect of Mr. Aznar towards his own Spanish population (about 80% of them are against this war).

One more reason: Most Germans think that the USA set a dangerous precedent by going to war unilaterally, without UN mandate. This opens doors we believed closed since WW2, and so far only a few dictators in Third World countries dared to ignore the UN. Now it’s a civilized superpower applying a ‘preemptive strike’, and many people believe that this motion will be used as excuse by other nations as well. The UN never had sharp teeth, but American unilateralism (often seen as bullying arrogance) rendered them completely toothless. Many Europeans hoped that the UN charter would make the world a bit safer, as the rules say that no superpower could act against another superpower’s veto (the US often used their veto in the past). That hope is gone, it’s now the law of the strongest military that rules the world. Sad.

And many Europeans are afraid of the long-range consequences for the world. Who is the next country to be attacked by US military? Where will they stop? Syria and Iran are already under a direct threat. Attacking North Korea will rile up their old ally China, and they ARE a superpower. Another worldwide conflict is one the verge.

But the main problem to me seems to be the fact that most of the mutual trust between USA and Europe is gone. It will be hard to restore, and it will affect the world economy, not only in Europe.

 

[Dave2112]

Ok, that answers the question. I don't think any real new light has been shed, and Hal, I really think you're taking a negative outlook on this. Trust me, the US is NOT looking for the next country to invade. We're really not like that.

I just think we don't understand each other. The UN will repair itself. Take my advice as a friend (and I really mean this), try to at least let things play out and see if they are really that bad. I'm not saying that we were right about everything, and I can FULLY understand how you feel and how that image can be projected. Just let me assure you that we don't wish to invade whomever we want. Even those of us that supported this war don't want that.

I'm sure that a lot of the things that we THINK that Europe feels toward us aren't real, either.

In hindsight, I'm sorry I brought this up, it really didn't help anything. I may have added to the mistrust, and I apologize.

I'm done talking about this for now. I'd much rather talk to my friends here about other things and hold them dear than let our politics separate us.

 

[grippedchimp]

The right-wing media in the UK (like a certain tabloid called The Sun) have been generally xenophobic. They've ripped on the likes of Jacques Chirac, Kofi Annan, and others. I think generally, the UK overall doesn't trust the words of Bush, Blair, etc. but the actual troops.

People who usually point a finger at the USA for being bully-like is due to them fighting other countries that oppose their beliefs (Cuba, Vietnam, etc.) in the past. Plus, a lot of people were not happy about how the Afghanisthan war ended. There is a certain animosity around that the USA will abuse their power. I've heard idiots in this very chatroom saying "we'll make *insert country* our own backyard" and that kind of language can increase paranoia and displeasure. I know the USA wouldn't do that, but I think a lot of the media and propaganda didn't help. All that talk of France being "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and the renaming of "freedom fries" just pissed me off myself. Hell, a French tennis player got booed recently when playing in a recent WTA tournament.

Personally, I started being anti-war, then I couldn't give a fuck about it (because politicians don't listen to the likes of me anyway), then recently I turned neutral when Saddam was "put of of power". Now, if Bush has another war, I'm not gonna say anything, because I, like many others, don't matter in it...

I know near fuck all about politics and history, but this is just a general opinion...

 

[qjakal]

Simple Math....

One brutal, repressive, murdering, narssistic dictator down...still too many to go. Hey, it's fine with me if another nation wants to take on the next one, as long as we don't keep BS'ing ourselves that these people aren't evil pieces of garbage who aren't fit to rule a sandbox, much less any civilized nation filled with people with hopes and dreams that will not and cannot ever be realized because they're not part of the ruling elite that represents 1% or less of the population and uses 75% of these countries GNP.

Guess we'll just wait for a few more "incidents"...or are we calling the murderous attacks "events' nowadays? Taxes will go up in some countries, but on the other hand, Iraqi women won't be raped in front of their families, and might even be able to get an education and a glimmer of happiness in their lives. Not glamorous enough for the world though? I've seen people theorize we may "kill the next Einstein" in these wars...why not realize we might just free him/her and allow them to grow up and become what they potentially could be?

Heads in the sand won't get the job done, and until we DO get rid of the worst offenders of human dignity, the others will see our inaction as license to practice their monstrous form of governments until forced out.

Do you remember Russia at it's peak of military power in the 70's? No one challenged them because they had demonstrated the WILL to use their military power, not just possess it. When they lost that will through corruption and internal chaos, they began to fail and recede, until their collapse capped the demise of their power.

China is a superpower in number only. In a land war they have a chance, but against even the assembled coalition forces currently deployed, they would fail miserably. No will, no technological innovations, just sheer mass of humanity being thrown to the enemy. Russia feared a land war with China due to its proximity...we do not. Regardless, there's no reason to speculate on that war, as despite their many faults the Chinese government DOES make attempts to move their society forward in their own fashion. Is it the path we would take? No. But it's not brutally repressive either. Having spent time in China, I can verify that it is NOT exactly a military industrial powerhouse, and their culture isn't oriented that way.

Syria...North Korea...2 large problem regimes. We won't "dare" act though, the world has expressed its outrage so eloquently that we'll now pull back, and those people will live in horrific conditions.....but the world will be at "peace". Q

 

[critterlord]

My word on it.

Like the Chimp, I have a very limited knowledge of politics, even my own American politics, but at this moment I am taking a rather through History class with a genius teacher. I have seen the past, and I am, sorry to say, seeing some very disturbing similarities to the US's actions, and the starting of Hitler's Germany.

Hitler would go out, and point at a country, claiming it was prejustice against the Germans in their borders, that they were killing and torturing native Germans, and they had to get them before they attacked German.

Let me sum up what I am seeing in America. Bush is pointing his finger at a dictator who has run his government for 30 years(it is kind of ironic. Did we just notice him? After all, we were the ones who put him in to power.) Bush claims that he has been aiding terrorists (without a scrab of evidence, argue all you want) and says that we have to hit him before he hits us. Its like me seeing my neighbor cleaning his gun, then three weeks later deciding that he is going to try to kill me, so I go out and shoot him. It just isn't right.

I am not sorry for my views, and can't help being ashamed of my countries leaders. As I have said, I support our troops, not our commanders. When countries wage war, innocents die. That is the cold hard truth. I can only advocate war as a means of retaliation, not haphazard prevention.

I will finish my rant with a paraphrased quote.

"Shame on you George Bush. When you have the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, you know you are screwed."

 

[avethibaltus]

As an American with close ties to both Germany and England, I feel that I can understand where all sides are coming from. On the other hand, there is a whole lot of propaganda which serves to muddy the waters so that political decisions can be made which, in fact, have no bearing on the real solution.

Who got ***reelected*** because of their anti-war stance in Germany? No success on the home front, strike up an international chord.

Who is going to get ***reelected*** because of their pro-war stance in the US? No success on the home front, strike up an international chord.

Who will ***benefit*** from their best friend and partner winning a(nother) war? No success on the home front, strike up an international chord.

The German people don't want a repeat of Hitler and pacifism is so rampant here, I don't think they would actively begin to try to defend themselves until the tanks were rolling through the streets of Berlin. 50+ years of "democratic re-education" has done its job, now the teacher is turning out to be a crooked.

The Americans are doing what Hitler did for pretty much the same reasons (invade less powerful nations that have something you want because they are a "threat") and will continue on their crusade, regardless. (Which countries would you take over if you wanted to control the world's most significant resource and be able to observe/respond to potential enemies? Go ahead, spin the globe.) The American people don't want a repeat of 9/11 and have consequently allowed their government to be taken over by what is historically probably one of the most close-knit, powerful, arrogant, and single minded right wing groups we have ever known. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

The British government is always keen for an opportunity to keep their ever shrinking military in fighting trim and know that they will benefit substantially from their support of this "Just War" - they'd be stupid not to participate - and no one is more adept at strategic diplomacy than the British. Just look at the national boundaries and nations they created when they "pulled out" of their colonies to insure that those former colonies never became a threat to the realm.

There will be no democratic reform in Iraq as we know it today because there are too many forces pulling at it from all directions, too many interests to be served, too many parasites looking for another meal. Things will deteriorate to utter chaos as they did after Tito in Yugoslavia, and, if the Iraqi people are lucky, two or three new nations will rise from the ashes without another war. Or the country will be occupied by the Americans, British, and Turks for the duration.

 

[BigJim]

Another voice from the UK.

As many of you who've read my posts know, I am no fan of either Hussein or Osama. However, the people of the US and the UK in particular have been conned, deceived, shafted and hornswoggled (that was for Admiral Trouser) by our governments and our media.

We were told it was okay to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, because it was part of the "War on Terror." We've also been led to believe that precision bombing has limited Afghani and Iraqi civillian casualties to a merciful few, compared to what they could've been. Unfortnatley we've been lied to hand over fist by people like Bush and Blair. I'm in the process of formulating what will truly be a massive post that gives a lot of background into the machinations behind 9/11 and the implications of everything that happened afterwards. A lot of it will stretch your credibility to breaking point and have you questioning my patriotism and possible even my sanity. However as a wise dude once said.....

"all that is required for evil to prosper, is for good men to stand by and do nothing".

When you see a thread started by me and it's got "9/11" somewhere in the title, you'll know it'll be on this subject. I'm expecting ridicule and skeptiscism, but I don't care. Even if you don't believe it and think I'm doing it because I'm bored and have nothing better to do, you all have the right to know what your leaders are doing without your knowledge or consent. I imagine that people who are supporters of Tony Blair and George W. Bush will find it hardest to believe, because the information I'll be posting will rank them as international criminals to such a degree that it will make someone like Osama look like a kid stealing candy from a dime store by comparison.

 

[BigJim]

The British government is always keen for an opportunity to keep their ever shrinking military in fighting trim and know that they will benefit substantially from their support of this "Just War" - they'd be stupid not to participate - and no one is more adept at strategic diplomacy than the British. Just look at the national boundaries and nations they created when they "pulled out" of their colonies to insure that those former colonies never became a threat to the realm.

Ave, I think you just made a very perceptive and intelligent post. I think it's especially interesting that you mentioned the British being strategic in the way we pulled out of the colonies of the empire when they gained their "independance". (A con trick if ever there was one.)

The problem with something like an empire is that it is too overt. Overt control can be felt and touched, it's too obvious. When the empire retreated on the surface, left behind was a network of secret societies, old boys and relatives who continue to pull strings in the respective countries to this day. The most important example of this, was in the War of Independance. It always strikes me as suprising that people never get suspiscious about people like George Washington, who was a Colonel in the British Army and a Knight of the Realm in England. (He was a member of The Order of the Garter for those who are interested.) The man was about as aristocratic as you can get. Why then would he and other like him risk so much for "liberty" when life had it all going their way anyway? That's a long story and one of the reasons my 9/11 post will be so damn long. For some things to make sense, I'll have to outline the history of America. I'm 99% sure that it'll be derided and laughed at, but WTF, I don't care. It's only information. I have no right to tell anyone whether they should believe it or not, that would turn into a creature like George W. Bush. As far as I'm concerned, once I've presented it people can do what they like with it.

 

[Marauder]

The Americans are doing what Hitler did for pretty much the same reasons (invade less powerful nations that have something you want because they are a "threat") and will continue on their crusade, regardless. (Which countries would you take over if you wanted to control the world's most significant resource and be able to observe/respond to potential enemies? Go ahead, spin the globe.)

While the rest of your post was a good read, I'll have to protest this point. Even though I'm a lefty, the U.S. isn't doing what Hitler was doing. The attacked countries are not incorporated into the United States. Also, Hitler was a demented, xenophobic megalomaniac, while George W. Bush is, um, George W. Bush. I find him horrid and get seizures from listening to his engineered demagogue speeches, but I really don't see him as some kind of lunatic who wants to kill off entire ethnic groups and conquer the world. I really believe that he wants to make the world a better place. He just chose a very poor way to go about it, born out of a lack of understanding for international politics. America isn't coming across as a power-hungry behemoth who wants to crush everything, then gobble it up. America comes across as someone who WILL MAKE US ALL SEE THE LIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY TWO WAYS, THE WRONG WAY AND THEIR WAY. That's bullying, not power-hungry world-domination. So, no, Bush != Hitler, and U.S. != Nazi Germany.

 

[BigJim]

Interesting thoughts M, but have you ever read my posts about overt control vs. covert control?

An excellent example of what "conspiracy theorists" call problem-reaction-soloution (cause a problem, engineer the public to demand a solution that you wanted to introduce anyway, but they'd never let you get away with if they hadn't thought it was their idea to start with) has just happened today in Iraq.

The US has said all along with the UK that they don't want to run or take over Iraq, just turn it back to the Iraqi people. Well since the war started anarchy has raged on the streets of Iraq with looting and Christ knows what else being commonplace. The reaction? An Iraqi police Colonel (who was almost certain "prompted" to say this) has said that in the name of the Iraqi people, he pleads with the US to send a few thousand special police over there to help restore order and train new Iraqi police.

The US & UKwant to install a system of placemen in Iraq. The Iraqi people would never swallow that despotic thought. The Solution? Get the IRaqi people to be drowned beneath a flood of anarchistic looters and they'll demand the US send police over to take control.
A similar thing happened after the Oklahoma bombing and more recently, 9/11. Within hours of both happeneing, the President (Clinton first time, Bush second) runs through the congress with barely a word of protest ( because for any senator or congressman to protest, would have destroyed their careers because of allegations of being un-patriotic ) laws that removed fundemental freedoms from American people by allowing the army more powers of supression in the event of domestic disturbances.

The problem............ they want to introduce this legislation, but American people would'nt stand for it because it's an encroachment of civil liberties. The soloution.............. a fuel fertiliser bomb in a Ryder truck and two planes full of people........... the reaction......the American people are up in arms because of the danger they see coming their way. They demand stricter laws that take away their own freedoms to protect them from the problems that were engineered from within in the first place.

If people think I'm going nuts on a "conspiracy theorist" loop again, well just wait until I post all the information about it that I've come across. When you've seen that, you can have an opinion on my sanity. Not before.

 

[Marauder]

Hitler wanted to take over the world because he believed the german people were a master race. Bush wants to wipe out all that threatens his country. There's a major difference between wanting to rule the world and wanting to impose your way of life upon it. Seeing that America's citizens are better off than most inhabitants of other countries, concluding that the American Way of Life is best for everyone is an easy mistake to make.

I don't think Bush is EVIL. I just think he is pretty clueless to things that happen outside the U.S. (which is not a good trait in the leader of the world's most powerful nation), and that his way of doing things will have (and already had) unfortunate consequences.

 

[qjakal]

Yes...and a bit of no as well...

The Hitler comparisions are always good for a laugh....thanks for taking care of that one already, Marauder. I rank them right up there with the "oil" conspiracies that fail to explain why we gave Kuwait back.

As for "our way or the wrong way", I think you have oversimplified the goal that Americans would like to see become reality. If by "our way", you mean a world that features nations that have a political system that encompasses freedom of religion and economy, as well as the ability for changes to be made in the powerstructure of the government...then I plead guilty. If you're implying we want everyone else to have MacDonalds and malls, and pro sports leagues with overpaid athletes watched by movie stars and musicians who also have too much money, then I disagree. The basic premise that human lives should have dignity and at least a chance to achieve greatness is what I like to think we're fighting for, and towards. Eliminating those who have established by time and actions their intent to crush their citizens into resource producing machines for the benefit of the entrenched, never to be removed except by force, elite....a good start. The world won't be poorer in any way for Iraqs government being expelled, and Iraqi citizens now have a world of potential opened up to them. Whether or not they ever achieve greatness remains to be seen, but under the old regime, their chances of success were zero.

Unfortunate consequences? Perhaps...

Potential benefits....many.

Yemen, Syria, North Korea....

China also struggles with human rights issues, because they just have too damn many people and no resources.

Anyway...more later. Waiting on BJims theories. He certainly brings a different viewpoint to these things, if nothing else! Q

 

[grippedchimp]

This is The War Against Terrorism (or TWAT as I'd like to call it), right? Seems Bush is going the rather odd way of approaching it.

Just wanted to know which 6 countries he's gunning for again (or rather countries he regards as evil). They were Iraq, North Korea (I have to agree they need sorting out), Syria, Iran, Yemen (?) and Cuba. Now, I have to wonder, is Cuba actually harbouring terrorists? Or does Bush want to sort them out because they're a communist country opposing the American way?

One thing's almost sure, I don't think Tony Blair would have no part in it...

 

[Dave2112]

I think we need to start dispelling the notion that we're "gunning for the next country". We can put that up there with the Hitler comparisons and the Blood for Oil arguement.

The point of this thread was to develop an understanding of one another, as I had asked what the general street-mood in Europe is over this. I asked, because you can't really ever tell without being there. Things get reported on a world-wide basis, and wind up filtered down to facts, figures and poll results. Over here there have been problems with Canadian truck drivers being harrassed when they go into NYC. (This is big social problem on our end, and people gotta grow the hell up...brought up so folks don't think I'm going with blind patriotism here.) The news says that the Canadian government has not backed this war. That's what you hear. But right where I am in the middle of it, the reality is that a majority of Canadian citizens support the action and thier American neighbors, regardless of Canada's "official" stance. Even worse are the drivers from Quebec with heavy French accents. They're mistaken for French and hassled over that. People are either too ignorant or too wrapped up in a need to spew to realize that Quebecers are about as French as Americans are British. From what I've been told by most of my French-Canadian customers is that France has little regard for Quebec. It's mostly a shared language.

Right here in Plattsburgh, there was another questionable act which caused quite a stink, and helped obscure the image we have for each other. The illustrious City Council, led by our "mayor" who somehow manages to be openly gay, a Republican and a Leftist, chose to announce that Plattsburgh's official stance was strongly anti-war. This caused no small bit of outrage in the local media and led to quite a heated town meeting. Folks most certainly did not like having thier stand decided and announced to the world for them. This is a big college town, and the council bowed to local pressure from that community. However, we are also the site of an Air Force base and there is a lot of military prescence here...along with Border Patrol, Customs and Immigration populations and thier families. In fact, after one so-called "peaceful protest", one local college "hero of the people" decided to make his opinion known by throwing feces on the Army Recruiting Station and further desecrating it. He even wrote to the paper and took responsibility, championing his cause. The support rally held the next weekend at the same site drew almost twice as many people as the anti-war protest.

My point is that you can't just trust the news to tell you what the feel is like on the other side of the world. That's why I was asking. Now, this thread has turned into yet another "Us vs. Them" thread, defeating the whole purpose. Does anyone else have anything on the original topic?

 

[BigJim]

Re: Yes...and a bit of no as well...

I rank them right up there with the "oil" conspiracies that fail to explain why we gave Kuwait back.

Waiting on BJims theories. He certainly brings a different viewpoint to these things, if nothing else! Q

The "blood for oil" people are woefully mis-guided and hopelessly off the mark. There was never and will never be any question of the war being "for oil". Let's face it, for the US/UK to take oil by military force would be an international crime of obvious and very public proportions. There is no way in hell that even a numpty like GWB would attempt it.
*GWB on America's education policies---"What we need to ask ourselves is, is our children learnin'?"*

The whole thing about blood for oil is a massive publicity white elephant. The people who are anti-war and have gravitated into that camp, are totally going down the wrong road.

Now the contracts worth 2 or 3 trillion dollars that will be paid for from Iraqi oil profits is another matter.............

Oh and while I'm at it, has anyone noticed that between 1990 and 1995, Iraq went from gazillionth to 1st in the league tables for occurences of childhood leukemia? Nothing to do with the radioactive weapons we used last time of course. DU shells are perfectly safe. I know it for a fact.......George W. Bush and Tony Blair said so, so it must be true.

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Just to make a quick point over the apparant ease at which one can disperse with the Oil conspiracy theory....consider this current fact: In Baghad, US Marines have, out of all of the Public Ministries (such as Ministry of Education and Ministry of Trade) that are now under there control, only posted troops in two in order to stop the general populace from ransacking them. Those two ministries that have been barrackaded? The Ministry of the Interior, which holds Iraq's extensive intelligence on other countries, and.....the Ministry of Oil.

Every other Ministry has been ransacked without US intervention.

And the're there to rebuild Iraq for the Iraqi people?

You decide...

AT

 

[avethibaltus]

Apologies to the Germans for the Hitler comparison. Ich weiss wie abstossend nur diese Gedanke ist, aber meine Landsleute brauchen manchmal einen Kick. I didn't mean that GW and AH were twins, just using the same logic and methods to achieve similar goals. (At least AH actually fought in a war whereas GW used his connections to get a slot in the Texas Air National Guard and avoid Vietnam) Ask yourself, what is the difference between systematic extermination and controlled extinction due to the "shoot now, die later" strategy that the US used against the Iraqis in GW1?

Why destroy water treatment facilities (GW1) and shut a country off from medical supplies (GW1+) when you are actually after 55 people (that's the current list)?

Why encourage elements of the population to rise up against their oppressors then sit back and watch while they are slaughtered? (Shi'ites in the south, GW1+)

Who is suffering in the recently **liberated** countries and who is living in Pakistan, Malaysia, and Syria?

The only people who think that this war isn't about money (for which oil is the raw material) are the ones who believe that the US judicial system works (+3% of the adult male population in PRISON!) and that the President was elected by a majority of eligible voters. (GW actually got about 24% of the votes if one remembers that voter turnout averages somewhere around 50% and less than half voted for him - it was the electoral college and his brother that put him in office). Yes folks, even AH had better numbers when his party was elected in 1933(33% if memory serves correctly).

Don't get me wrong - I would love to be proved wrong but am sorry to say, it ain't gonna happen.

And a final thought - Ever see the movie The Patriot? A fine movie from a German director with English and Australian actors in the main roles. Typically American I am proud to say. Now picture Mel Gibson in Iraqi garb and imagine that it wasn't the Green Dragoons that killed his son but say, an Apache firing a Hellcat or maybe a Bradley; what would be the real difference in the motivation for everything that follows. How do you think the average "Arab on the street" feels when he sees the pictures on Al Jazeera or CNN (comparison intended)? Maybe a litte frustrated? Maybe a little helpless? Maybe a little like Mel Gibson in The Patriot?

The British were the bad guys when they wouldn't let us live our lives as we wanted. Who are the bad guys when we don't let others live their lives as they want?