Quoting:
I also feel like Bush & his minions know ALOT more about it then they are telling us.
End Quote

I darn well hope so: I'd hate to think they went to war with the only justification being what we've been told so far.

The analysis of the videos on this side of the pond came to the conclusion that they couldn't have been pre-recorded as there was too much current information included; however, they weren't positive that the chap speaking was actually Saddam Hussein: one of the clips they showed on the News had me and the chap next to me saying "No way that's him" in unison... there was something that just didn't ring true about the picture.

Phil

Quoting:
I think the very fact that the war's still going is proof that Saddam is still alive. He is a man who rules by absolute fear. Even his cabinet is afraid of him. If he was dead, the Iraqis would capitulate immediately.
End Quote

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this (Sorry Gore ;))
Firstly, I'm sure anyone who is scared of him, would not be totally sure of his demise.  I mean, would you take the chance?
Secondly, the Iraqis aren't fighting for Saddam, they're fighting for their country!  Call it propaganda if you like, but they are probably more scared of the Americans than Saddam.
I don't like my current regime but I would still prefer to sort the problem myself.  An invasion by America (or anyone else) would force me to put aside my dislike of the Blair junta and fight the 'common enemy'.  An American invasion of Iraq might actually increase Saddam's popularity (albeit for the short time he's likely to live)

Quoting:
I think he's alive and well and living in the suburbs of Washington DC ::)

End Quote

I think he's living in the "Presidential Suite" at the Washington Hilton.  :o  :D

Quoting:
You're free to disagree with me anytime Tao! And you're right, I'd say that despite the hatred they may have for Saddam, many Iraqis see the invasion as an afront and will resist it. But without an identifiable leader, any resistance would be fairly short-lived. Saddam's death would be an enormous blow to morale. Propaganda it might be, but we have already seen the people of Baghdad and their reaction to coming under fire from invading forces. They're hardly "dancing in the streets" now, are they?
End Quote

Kind of hard to dance in the streets when the war is still going on and you are waiting for someone to give you food and water...that someone that is having a difficult time getting thru because of the mines laid out by your oppressors.

Quoting:
I fear there will be little dancing in Iraq for many years!
Life under the new American installed dictator is not likely to be much different than under the existing American installed dictator!
Other than the fact that the US media will report murder of civilians as 'the war against terrorism'
End Quote

Do you really think that we are going through all of this trouble just to install another dictator? What would be the benefit to the USA? What would be the benefit to Great Britain, or any others? So far, the only people that this is benefiting are the @#$% FRENCH, who are shoe -ins for the rebuilding! I am not being sarcastic, I really want to know why anyone would think this? Please tell me your reasons.

Quoting:
I'm not sure how the French are going to benefit at all!
End Quote

It has been in the news here in the USA lately that there are French Companies that are going to be hired for Reconstruction in Iraq.

Quoting:
Don't believe all the hype, no country ever went to war for the benefit of anyone else!

End Quote

Then how in the he11 do you explain WW 1 and WW2 ??

Quoting:
Then how in the he11 do you explain WW 1 and WW2 ??
End Quote

I'm not sure what you mean here?
Most of Europe fought because it was attacked and had no choice.  The US fought because it saw an opportunity to grab some of the world for itself (from the British, French, Germans, etc)

Quoting:

I'm not sure what you mean here?
Most of Europe fought because it was attacked and had no choice.  The US fought because it saw an opportunity to grab some of the world for itself (from the British, French, Germans, etc)
End Quote

This was quoted in another thread, but I think this gal sums it up:

Quoting:
Here is something sent to me today by email from a friend, just thought I would share it with you:



When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.



End Quote

Quoting:

I'm not sure what you mean here?
Most of Europe fought because it was attacked and had no choice.  The US fought because it saw an opportunity to grab some of the world for itself (from the British, French, Germans, etc)
End Quote

And, what part would that be?  I'm not aware of any US controlled areas in Europe.

Quoting:
And, what part would that be?  I'm not aware of any US controlled areas in Europe.
End Quote

Well no, you won't ever get Europe, The French (for example) are even more nationalist than British and would rather nuke the world than submit to American rule,.
I was referring to parts of the relevant empires..
Kuwait (from the British)
Vietnam (From the French)
Palestine (From the British) - The Israelis are not technically American but they are so reliant on US weapons that the potential for control is there!
During WWII, the Americans (quite rightly) asked why they should fight to protect British ownership of these overseas regions.

Quoting:
Okay, I have a question for everyone who is against the war...

You have all made your feelings clear that the US is in it for economic reasons.  What are the other 47 countries in the coalition in it for?  Is it purely economic for them as well?
End Quote

Most of these countries are either dependent on US aid or would like to receive some.
A lot of them are dictatorships where the regime's support does not in any way reflect the views of the people (the UK is unfortunately one of these)
Turkey (for example) wants to be accepted into the civilised world, despite its appaling stance on human rights.

Please don't misunderstand me, I do not intend to imply that the American people are 'only in it for the money'  I believe most American citizens are honest, reasonable people.  They are just deceived by the ruling class (the 10%) who will benefit from this war whilst the rest (90%) will simply pay for it.

Quoting:
Most of Europe fought because it was attacked and had no choice.  The US fought because it saw an opportunity to grab some of the world for itself (from the British, French, Germans, etc)
End Quote

Based on WWII, America was attacked as well, by Japan.  Then, Germany declared war.

With everything going on right now, everyone seems to forget the fact that before the two(European) World Wars, the United States was "isolationist".  FDR had unbelievable political pressure to stay on the sidelines.  

Quoting:
Your correct, both big oceans on either side allowed us to be isolationists for a long time but Japan gave us a nasty reality check, just like Bin Laden did with the 9/11 attacks. :-/  
End Quote

In what way was the US 'isolationist'?
If America really did keep to itself and ignore the rest of the world, the rest of the world would simply ignore it.  Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 would have happened!

Quoting:


And, what part would that be?  I'm not aware of any US controlled areas in Europe.
End Quote

The U.S. have military bases in Germany, England, Greece, Italy, Spain and several other countries. No other country has a military base in the U.S. (unless you count the U.N.)




Cat

Quoting:


The U.S. have military bases in Germany, England, Greece, Italy, Spain and several other countries. No other country has a military base in the U.S. (unless you count the U.N.)




Cat
End Quote

Cat, they kinda want us there, otherwise we wouldn't even be there ::)  If Germany suddenly said, "Okay, get out!" I'm sure the troops and powers that be would be more than happy to leave.

Quoting:


Cat, they kinda want us there, otherwise we wouldn't even be there ::)  If Germany suddenly said, "Okay, get out!" I'm sure the troops and powers that be would be more than happy to leave.
End Quote

There have been places that told us to "get out." The Philippines, Greece and now Japan wants us out, too.




Cat

Quoting:

In what way was the US 'isolationist'?
If America really did keep to itself and ignore the rest of the world, the rest of the world would simply ignore it.  Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 would have happened!

End Quote

A few ways in which the The U.S. was isolationist before World War 2 were:

A great number of Americans thought it was a mistake to intervene during World War 1 and didn't want to get involved in another one.  FDR was elected in 1940 on the premise. "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."  Obviously, what happened in December of the next year changed everything.

Congress passed Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to avoid future foreign entanglements that could lead to war.

The Great Depression.  So much of the U.S. population was suffering at this time, the last thing they cared about what was going on Europe.  The average American at this time was worried about trying to make a decent living to put food on the table to provide for their families.



How does one conclude that Japan ignored the U.S. by attacking her?  The thousands of Americans would died at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941 hadn't bothered anyone.

Quoting:
How does one conclude that Japan ignored the U.S. by attacking her?  The thousands of Americans would died at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941 hadn't bothered anyone.
End Quote

My point was not that Japan ignored the US, it was that the US was not keeping to itself.
The US was opposed to Japanese expansion in the Pacific.  It made protests which the Japanese saw as meddling in their own “Sphere of Influence” by a power located thousands of miles away.  In 1940, the US imposed a trade embargo and siezed Japanese assets.
In fact, the disputes between Japan and the US had been going on since 1853 when Perry arrived in Japan with his superior ships and forced the Japanese to end their isolationism.

Quoting:


A few ways in which the The U.S. was isolationist before World War 2 were:

A great number of Americans thought it was a mistake to intervene during World War 1 and didn't want to get involved in another one.  FDR was elected in 1940 on the premise. "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."  Obviously, what happened in December of the next year changed everything.

Congress passed Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to avoid future foreign entanglements that could lead to war.

The Great Depression.  So much of the U.S. population was suffering at this time, the last thing they cared about what was going on Europe.  The average American at this time was worried about trying to make a decent living to put food on the table to provide for their families.



How does one conclude that Japan ignored the U.S. by attacking her?  The thousands of Americans would died at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941 hadn't bothered anyone.
End Quote

It amazes me that so many people have trouble distinguishing between the US Gov't, the corporate interests it supports, and the people.  Woodrow Wilson was re-elected on a "he kept us out of war" platform, but if England, France and Italy had lost, the Morgan Guarantee and Trust Co., which was financing their purchase of US war material, would have gone belly up.  In, if memory serves - I don't have my books here - 1929, the Morgan group of banks controlled fully 25% of all industrial capital in the U.S. (Corey, The House of Morgan).  The collapse or Tzarist Russia, and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk freed up hundreds of thousands of German troops for war in France.  They could have tipped the scales.  So the people were isolationist, but the bankers and Wilson's closest advisors, especially Col. Edward House, were not.
Prior to WWII Japan decided (justly or not) that it needed to gain access to resources in East Asia, was blocked at several turns by the US, which also had "assets" there and wanted more (not colonies except, at the time, the Phillipeans but investment oportunities and markets).  FDR pushed hard on Japan, trying to goad it into an attack in order to overcome popular isolationism.  He had already had Congress repeal the Neutrality Act, and had made the "Lend-Lease" deal with Churchill.
I see many similarities between this history and what is going on now.  The PEOPLE tend to be isolationists, but the gov't and its corporate sponsor are not.  They are out to control as much of the world as possible.  I think that if the people really understood our history and our foreign policies, they would be appalled

Quoting:
Soooo... in the spirit of isolationism, should the US not have done squat outside of its sphere of influence with Japan, would it have been good then to ignore Germany over there in Europe when it was attacking its neighbours and conquering them, not to mention the holocaust? Would it have been good to just leave Europe alone and let it succumb to Hitler?

That's a bold stance, Taoist...
End Quote

It may well be bold, but it's not my stance!
Please don't make up my arguments for me  >:(
Read my post again, then try reading this!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Quoting:


It amazes me that so many people have trouble distinguishing between the US Gov't, the corporate interests it supports, and the people.  Woodrow Wilson was re-elected on a "he kept us out of war" platform, but if England, France and Italy had lost, the Morgan Guarantee and Trust Co., which was financing their purchase of US war material, would have gone belly up.  In, if memory serves - I don't have my books here - 1929, the Morgan group of banks controlled fully 25% of all industrial capital in the U.S. (Corey, The House of Morgan).  The collapse or Tzarist Russia, and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk freed up hundreds of thousands of German troops for war in France.  They could have tipped the scales.  So the people were isolationist, but the bankers and Wilson's closest advisors, especially Col. Edward House, were not.
Prior to WWII Japan decided (justly or not) that it needed to gain access to resources in East Asia, was blocked at several turns by the US, which also had "assets" there and wanted more (not colonies except, at the time, the Phillipeans but investment oportunities and markets).  FDR pushed hard on Japan, trying to goad it into an attack in order to overcome popular isolationism.  He had already had Congress repeal the Neutrality Act, and had made the "Lend-Lease" deal with Churchill.
I see many similarities between this history and what is going on now.  The PEOPLE tend to be isolationists, but the gov't and its corporate sponsor are not.  They are out to control as much of the world as possible.  I think that if the people really understood our history and our foreign policies, they would be appalled
End Quote

I was addressing the ways in which the U.S. was isolationist and why.  No more, no less. I don't have trouble distinguishing anything.  So, please don't lecture me. By the way, I've heard that FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory too, I think it's garbage.

Quoting:
I never did claim it was YOUR stance, nor was I making any arguments for anybody. I wrote it was bold stance, then a comma, and then your username (Should I phrase everything in the form of a question, Taoist?).
End Quote

I apogise!
I've been watching politicians on TV all day spouting the most ludicrous BS and it kind of shortened my fuse! >:(

Quoting:

My point was not that Japan ignored the US, it was that the US was not keeping to itself.
The US was opposed to Japanese expansion in the Pacific.  It made protests which the Japanese saw as meddling in their own “Sphere of Influence” by a power located thousands of miles away.  In 1940, the US imposed a trade embargo and siezed Japanese assets.


In fact, the disputes between Japan and the US had been going on since 1853 when Perry arrived in Japan with his superior ships and forced the Japanese to end their isolationism.

End Quote

The Dutch had been going into Japanese ports before Perry arrived, so they weren't completely isolationist.  You're right the U.S. was looking to develop trade with Japan, just as many European countries had an "Open Door Policy" with the Chinese previously.  After 1854, other countries followed suit and tried to open trade relations with Japan.  These relationship economically benefited both Japan and The West.

You're right, The U.S. was against the Japanese invading China.

Quoting:

I apogise!
I've been watching politicians on TV all day spouting the most ludicrous BS and it kind of shortened my fuse! >:(

End Quote

Now you know how I feel ;)

*ahem*  "apologise" <-- Brit spelling
             "apologize" <-- American pig spelling

:D

Quoting:
You're right, The U.S. was against the Japanese invading China.
End Quote

Yeah, so were my grandparents :-/

Quoting:

The U.S. have military bases in Germany, England, Greece, Italy, Spain and several other countries. No other country has a military base in the U.S. (unless you count the U.N.)

End Quote

Indeed. There is also a major US military base in Saudi Arabia, and that is one of bin Laden's major beefs. The US also has bases in Japan, the Philippines and throughout the Pacific, including secret installations in Australia. Some of these places may "want" the US there, but I wonder what the US would think if some other country, like, say, Russia, started putting military bases all over the place? Unfortunately US foreign policy has an alarming history of playing double standards.

Quoting:
Are you anti-war, or are you really anti-USA? In other words,,, had the USA waited for the UN to finally pull it's head out of it's  :-X and do something about Iraq, would you feel differently about the war because the UN endorsed it?

End Quote

I would be opposed to war no matter what. But had the UN sanctioned the use of force against Iraq, it would have at least made the conflict somewhat legitimate. At the moment it just looks like the US got frustrated because the rest of the world said "No!", so they stamped their feet, grabbed a couple of friends and went and started their own game. America tried everything to win support for the war. They said Iraq had WMDs, then they said Iraq supported Al-Qaida, then they said Saddam was a tyrant and had to be toppled. They changed the story every day to try to convince the world we needed to go to war against Iraq. And the world kept asking "What's the real reason?". If it really is about liberating the people from a despot, then here's a suggestion for those in charge. When you're finished in Iraq, send a few men into Zimbabwe, because there's a despot there who's almost as bad as Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have WMDs or tenuous links to Al-Qaida or vast oilfields, but he is a tyrant, and he's starving and terrorising his people. If Saddam being a tyrant is enough justification to invade Iraq, then we should invade Zimbabwe, as well.

Quoting:


I would be opposed to war no matter what. But had the UN sanctioned the use of force against Iraq, it would have at least made the conflict somewhat legitimate. At the moment it just looks like the US got frustrated because the rest of the world said "No!", so they stamped their feet, grabbed a couple of friends and went and started their own game. America tried everything to win support for the war. They said Iraq had WMDs, then they said Iraq supported Al-Qaida, then they said Saddam was a tyrant and had to be toppled. They changed the story every day to try to convince the world we needed to go to war against Iraq. And the world kept asking "What's the real reason?". If it really is about liberating the people from a despot, then here's a suggestion for those in charge. When you're finished in Iraq, send a few men into Zimbabwe, because there's a despot there who's almost as bad as Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have WMDs or tenuous links to Al-Qaida or vast oilfields, but he is a tyrant, and he's starving and terrorising his people. If Saddam being a tyrant is enough justification to invade Iraq, then we should invade Zimbabwe, as well.
End Quote

Ummm... have we cleared that Zimbabwe thing with the French?   ;)
I think the US was dragged into the coalition building UN route by Tony Blair and Colin Powell.  The hardliners in the administration would gladly have declared war with or without res 1441.  

Then "we" should invade Zimbabwe, as well?

Quoting:I would be opposed to war no matter what. But had the UN sanctioned the use of force against Iraq, it would have at least made the conflict somewhat legitimate. End Quote

So then complain to France.  They made it clear they would vetoe anything regarding war with Iraq no matter what.

Quoting:At the moment it just looks like the US got frustrated because the rest of the world said "No!", so they stamped their feet, grabbed a couple of friends and went and started their own game. End Quote

a couple of freinds?  What is it now, 48 nations?   ::)  Yes I kow, you consider the coalition to be illegitamate, but to each his own. ::)

Quoting:They said Iraq had WMDsEnd Quote

and when it is proven, will you admit you were wrong?  How do you know Iraq doesn't have them?  I will say the developments over the last couple days (the Iraqi chemical suits, the bilogical-weapon antidote pills in the Iraqi defectors pockets etc etc) are very disturbing.

Quoting:then they said Saddam was a tyrant and had to be toppled. End Quote

...and were they wrong?  Why don't you plead your cae to the families of those who watched their family members be dropped into a plastic shredder, or perhaps the ones who had their tongues cut out.

You No War, no matter what people are an enigma.  You want peace, but are willing to stand idley by while 1000's of innocent Iraqis are being murdered on a monthly basis. ::)

Quoting:

a couple of freinds?  What is it now, 48 nations?   Yes I kow, you consider the coalition to be illegitamate, but to each his own.
End Quote

I already posted what I thought about the list of 48 nations in the coalition in this thread http://www.inthe00s.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=inthe00s&action=display&num=1048085178&start=45 and you sidestepped my reply.

Quoting:
and when it is proven, will you admit you were wrong?  How do you know Iraq doesn't have them?  I will say the developments over the last couple days (the Iraqi chemical suits, the bilogical-weapon antidote pills in the Iraqi defectors pockets etc etc) are very disturbing.

...and were they wrong?  Why don't you plead your cae to the families of those who watched their family members be dropped into a plastic shredder, or perhaps the ones who had their tongues cut out.

End Quote

I didn't say that Iraq doesn't have WMDs. Nor did I say that Saddam shouldn't be toppled. I merely said that the US administration seemed to use a different justification for war every time it was brought up. Each time another country (and not just France, by the way -- Russia, Germany and China are opposed as well. Or don't they count?)  said some reason or other wasn't good enough, the US thought of something else. So one moment we were going to war to force Saddam to disarm, and the next it was to bring a regime change. Which is it? One or the other, or both?

Quoting:
You No War, no matter what people are an enigma.  You want peace, but are willing to stand idley by while 1000's of innocent Iraqis are being murdered on a monthly basis. End Quote

Again, you fail to address a key point of my argument, which is: if the current US line regarding the invasion of Iraq is to remove a corrupt regime, why are they only doing this in Iraq and not other places where corrupt regimes exist?

Quoting:
For those of you who don't believe that Saddam would ever try to attack us or could attack us, here's some interesting reading...

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990215/1999021533.html
End Quote

Saddam has said that Iraq will win the war too. If he can launch attacks against these places, why hasn't he?

Quoting:


Again, you fail to address a key point of my argument, which is: if the current US line regarding the invasion of Iraq is to remove a corrupt regime, why are they only doing this in Iraq and not other places where corrupt regimes exist?
End Quote

You'll never get an answer to your question because removing a corrupt regime is not the intended goal of this invasion. Removing a corrupt, violent regime is only an indirect result from whatever purpose the USers really want to invade Iraq.

Quoting:
Removing a corrupt, violent regime is only an indirect result from whatever purpose the USers really want to invade Iraq.
End Quote

Which is what, exactly?

Quoting:


Which is what, exactly?
End Quote

Don't ask me ??? USers have only been given excuses by the admin. that it's because of 9/11, to free Iraqis, WMDs, UN resolutions, terrorism, threats to the homeland, and bog knows what other whoppers they've laid on them.

Quoting:

Quoting:.... if the current US line regarding the invasion of Iraq is to remove a corrupt regime, why are they only doing this in Iraq and not other places where corrupt regimes exist?
End Quote

More invasions? We could probably arrange that....

Lemme see, any good oil deposits Down Under? Didn't I hear rumours of John Howard running secret torture and death camps for his political enemies....? Oh the possibilities.... ::)