Who wants to go to war with Iraq?

[jakesi]

And why?

[pallas]

I think we stand on the threshold of the next era: The Second Cold War. The first Cold War was America the Righteous beseiged by the menace that was Godless Communism. The Second will be a just America beseiged by the Godless Heathens. And remember all the "fiddling" the US undertook to fight their enemy? Crushing democracy in places like Chile and all over Central America - because it was a way to deny "the enemy" a perceived advantage. All the old tricks come out, all the old lessons learnt about keeping "friendlies" doing what they were told. I happen to think America will win the Second Cold War; at a terrible cost. But it will be a worse cost for those perceived to be "the enemy". They will be treated with the regard they are due: none. And if some sections of a "friendly country" are defined as "The Enemy" that means we just do it quietly. And allies can expect enormous benefit from the Alliance. Particularly generals in unstable countries; the US loves them. And the problem is: America decides if and when you're an allay. Or an ally. Or maybe both. And you have no say in the matter. So my advice is: be nice to the Americans!

[solid]

why can usa an other countires have weapons..... since world war 2.. usa hs bombed over 40 coutires an used the a bomb 2 times......... iraq invaded a nighouring country..... wth weapons an support from the usa an uk before the gulf war..... iraq gets bombed by usa an othr countires for tht..... it gets sanctions put on....... iraq peple suffer for over 10 yers...... why doesnt usa get treated lke tht.......

[solid]

usa wnts oil for blood usa has bombed 40 countires since world war 2 an used the a bomb 2 times....... why didnt no one put sanctions on thm

[davver]

Well, solid, there's a lot to solve here isn't there! (Quite apart from your typing). Let's start with your first: 'usa hs bombed over 40 coutires an used the a bomb 2 times'. The atom bomb was dropped on Japan twice to bring about the end of World War 2. It was preceded by a long Pacific campaign during which the Allies had managed to turn the initial tide of attcks which went the way of the Japanese and were closing in on Japan. As they didn't want a long drawn-out landing campaign which would involve probably millions of lives lost on both sides, it was decided to use the nuclear bomb as a threat instead. Millions of leaflets were dropped on the target cities days before the bombs were dropped, saying 'We are going to bomb you unless your leaders surrender. Tell them to surrender. Get out of the city. There will be a terrible bomb.' They didn't surrender, the bomb was dropped, they didn't surrender, another bomb was dropped, they surrendered. End of war. The fact that the USA and the USSR both had nuclear missiles was the single reason why the Cold War never became a 'hot' one, at least not globally. Although the USA had always been fairly isolationist (which is why they are always referred to as being 'late' for the wars) they decided that it was necessary to get countries surrounding the USSR to be on their side, to try to stem the expansion of the 'communist' empire, which was rapidly becoming not only a threat to global stability, but to many people who were living in the countries taken over and who were actually shot or starved or stuck in forced labour camps (sound familiar? - Hitler, Saddam, Pol Pot). That is why wars sprang up around the fringes of the Soviet empire, eg the Korean war. That is why there was bombing in lots of countries. Another example is the US bombing as part of the campaign to bring peace to the Balkans. It is not a 100% stable area now, I grant you, but it is an improvement to the civil war of ten years ago.

[davver]

To continue to the rest of your points: 'iraq invaded a nighouring country..... wth weapons an support from the usa an uk before the gulf war..... iraq gets bombed by usa an othr countires for tht..... it gets sanctions put on....... iraq peple suffer for over 10 yers...... why doesnt usa get treated lke tht'. Iraq was supported in its war against Iran because at the time, Iran was ruled by the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp?) who was considered a far greater evil than Saddam Hussein's regime. You can look up the reasons. Remember, in the Second World War we wouldn't have defeated Hitler without Stalin. Plus, the Iran/Iraq war was not about territory; it was about protecting himself against the Ayatollah. The Kuwait invasion was undeniably Saddam wanting to expand his country (= his rule). Then, there were countries allied to Kuwait (as a result oil trade links) who were prepared to defend it. Then UN weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq, and when they were kicked out and their job made impossible, sanctions were imposed by the UN upon Iraq, not forseeing that it wouldn't touch Saddam, just his people. There are no sanctions as such imposed upon the USA because they have never kicked weapons inspectors out of their country. They are open about their nuclear armoury, and can be trusted to only use it as a deterrent, and only actually use it as in retaliation to another nuclear attack. (Is that not reasonable?). The USA government does not execute thousands of people each week. It has a free press. It has elections (however cynical you may be about them). It does not have an ethnic cleansing programme, as a result of which it is not in a civil war. It does not condone terrorist attacks. It does not pay a cash reward to the families of terrorists. That is why Iraq had sanctions (as far as the UN ws prepared to go) and the USA does not. I hope that's cleared some things up.