How Many More Countries Do We Need On Our Side

Hello, I'm Will and I'm from brooklyn, today I was watching CNN to check in on what's up. Well the president said today that Sudam has weeks not months. Most of the EU threw their chips in today. We have eight countries on our side and people are placing their bets on HUGE american victory and piece of that oil pie.

Germany and Itally said no, and all of England except Tony Blair are screeming no. Italy, Denmark, Spain, Poland, Hungry, and three other countires are in it to win. Do we need more to go to war or is their a chance none of this will go down? Either way looks bad to me. What do you think?

When does war look good anyways? (I'm not discussing revolution) Well lately, within the past few years, at least.

But this is coming from a pacifist. *shrugs*

MAKE NOT WAR!

I agree. I say this as a strong opponent to war. I used to be in the NAVY for four years, and had to leave because of it crossed to many lines of my beliefs. Knowing the thought process of the government and the military it's hard for to imagine more people are not vocal about this.

all i have to say is this. we better not piss england off.















































































:: laughs ::

Not our war? Maybe not. Why are we going to war? The wrong reasons...

But As said in other coloumns, if we';re all so worried baout human rights, then we should be going in ot thelp the Iraqi people, especially the Kurds. I hate war, it's a terrible thing. For so mnay live,s most of them young and some my age, to go out in a blink of an eye for no real reason is terrible.

However, sometimes, we just have to draw the line and say 'No More'. Saddam has the chance to avert disaster. It's his choice. If he was inncoent, he would....

And yeah, we ARE the United Kingdom, not just England. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, a Union of countries and not of states. And Tony Blair isn't the only one who is for this war, there are others too...

And you're right, you'd better not piss 'England' off. Otherwise we'll send some football fans over to sort you guys out!!!!!!!!

Who "we"?

"They" are most certainly going to attack Iraq. Eventually the bad cop steps in and smacks the poor fucker. Which in this case is the people of Iraq -- hundreds of thousands dead from sanctions, already.

The prize, of course, makes it all worth-while. The costs of the war are public costs -- taxes, dead ordinary americans. The benefits of the war will be privatized, in the form of oil.

Iraq will look little different after the war. Kuwait looks little different ten years later -- Afghanistan likewise, a year later. But those "problems" are solved, i.e. the U.S. is in control. So we won't hear about it.

Peace,
-- Beow

i don't want to come off like some war monger, but everyone seems to forget something: everyone who would go to fight is A CAREER SOLDIER!!! what do soldiers do? among many things, they fight wars. no one is enacting the draft. everyone who joins the military knows that there is a possibility that they will have to go to war. no one wants to see our troops harmed. unfortunately, casualties are a biproduct of war. i'm not taking sides here, just stating a fact.

i apologize for not aknowledging the military service requirements of our european allies. you brought up a very interesting subject: the question of iraq's weapons arsenal. THAT"S how this whole thing started! if they ever get long range capabilities, you can bet on they will bomb the u.s. and europe. i would hate to see a repeat of 9/11 (or worse) in the u.s., europe, israel, ANYWHERE!

i don't think anyone WANTS a war. i keep hoping there will be a coup from within iraq, but saddam keeps a VERY tight inner circle. i just don't think it can happen. the iraqi people have been through enough by the hands of their own leader. however, if hussein is left alone, he WILL rebuild his arsenal (if he hasn't already), and he WILL kill many more people. it has to be nipped in the bud before it turns catastrophic. the u.n. has given him more than enough chances, none of which he has come clean on. he has repeatedly violated the surrender agreement from the war in '91. if we keep giving him one more chance, it's gonna be too late. i don't want that for me, you, or any of our allies.

aww! i didn't know you were from england, cherry. that's rad. my little brother did the summer program at cambridge last summer and i stayed with him for a few weeks. england is a fun place. you know what? your food gets a bad rap. it looks pretty gross, but it's DELICIOUS. haha that's all i got =P

[Edited on Jan 30, 2003 by FIRE3ORMETEO]

let's also remember the lessons the axis powers (germany, italy and japan) taught the world in wwii. i think that one of the main responsibilities of the u.n. is to prevent that from ever happening again. i look at the situations in iraq and north korea, and i see alot of scary similarities.

I think Colin Powell has tried to make it quite clear that the U.S. will go to war if it deems it appropriate, even without the support of other countries.

Hey, girls and boys, it's not Italy and Germany, it's FRANCE and Germany who are against war. France had to learn nothing in WW2 (hell, they would give you a kick in the ass if they hear you saying that they've learned form the US ) and I doubt that Italy had ever learned anything ... Italy has always been Italy, but you can only love it. (Hehe, did you know that they had more different govenments since WW2 than there are years?)
Besides, If there was a lesson, it was not taught in WW2, but after WW2. It's hard to teach with war.

[Edited on Jan 31, 2003 by Denkedran]

An interesting point made a couple of days ago by my Middle Eastern Studies lecturer: The reason France are not supporting war is because they have not been offered a large enough portion of Iraqi oil. When they are guaranteed a satisfactory share of the spoils, they will support war.
I am unsure of this view. However, it's not the view of some anonymous message board user; the man is a former diplomat who has spent his life studying Middle Eastern affairs.


My own view on the war is ambiguous. On the one hand, it appears to be a war about Western power and oil. On the other, Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who should be overthrown. As I have said regarding other subjects, I don't think anyone here has sufficient information to say whether the coming war is morally right or wrong. Only time will tell, and we may never know the truth.

Actually, let's keep this straight.

Italy is in. France is not.

And the minute anyone (Canada included) starts taking the lead of France and Germany in international affairs, we may as well just give it up.

France only gets involved in old colonies or blowing up Greenpeace boats.

Germany, well Germany makes good cars.

For France, it is all about Iraqi oil. Ooops, wasn't that the US? France? US? France? Vive la repulique!!!!! (just pick one)

Good guns too. I bet Germany starts backing us in war when we start fielding more HK's.