What should we ask of Bush II.2?

When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it?

See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject

  
Bush Wins Election

Debate - Page 4/12

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Michel Bastian, France

to Phil Karasick:
> Well, obviously, I disagree with that view. To begin with, the US is not "imperialist".
You know, I actually thought so, too, until the Bush administration came along. US foreign policy was never bent on acquiring an empire or ruling other parts of the world. On the contrary, ever since the Monroe doctrin (hope I spelled that right), US foreign policy used to be very reluctant to intervene anywhere outside the US. Before Bush, people would probably have called the US "isolationists" rather than "imperialists". However, all this has changed since the Bush administration put forward it´s preemptive strike doctrin. In essence, this doctrin means the US can intervene militarily anywhere in the world if it thinks its interests, particularly its security interests, are threatened, and even before any actual attack on the US itself occurs. In these cases, it will not even consult with other states (though it might inform some of them it considers to be its allies beforehand, but that´s optional, too). It will just strike, period. That, IMO, is imperialism, plain and simple, not because the US want to rule over other states, but because they act in flagrant disregard of any international laws and treaties. Basically, they use the "might makes right" argument for that, and this is a very dangerous development.
> The US did not liberate Iraq for the purposes of acquiring territory, acquiring oil or acquiring anything else.
Hmm, given the american fuel consumption and the connection of Bush to the texan oil business, I find it hard to believe that oil wasn´t at least one of the motivations for the invasion (or liberation, if you prefer ;-)), but I can´t prove that, so I´m prepared to run with your assumption for argument´s sake.
> We liberated Iraq to eliminate the threat posed by Sadly Insane Saddam Hussein. The threat posed by Saddam to other countries in the region is factual and is a matter of historical record. <...>.
I´m not denying Saddam was a dictator and a criminal etc., but I doubt very much that this was the prime motivation of the Bush administration to go to war. There wasn´t any real threat to the US from Iraq. Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD and he wasn´t the only dictator seeking to build them. The threat posed by North Korea to the US (and the rest of the world) is infinitely more real, yet the US haven´t started an invasion there. Pakistan is a politically unstable country with WMD. Why hasn´t Washington asked them (and India, while you´re at it) to dismantle their nuclear arsenal if they´re so into preemptive strategies? Mind you, I´m not saying the Bush administration invaded Iraq for purely selfish reasons. It might well be that they genuinely wanted to remove a dictator from power as a positive spin-off, but I doubt very much this was their prime motivation.
> We in America waited patiently for the UN and the EU to remove Saddam from power, which never happened.
No, that´s not quite true. The US didn´t "wait patiently". Before 9/11 they were just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the rest of the security council. They didn´t have a reason to. Only when the administration felt that Iraq was a prime factor in the war against terror (in other words: when they felt american security interests where directly affected) did they push the UN, hard, to pass resolutions that were tantamount to a declaration of war. For various reasons (many of which were proven to be right afterwards), the UN (notably Russia, Germany, France and China) didn´t want to do that. So the Bush administration just ignored the UN and went ahead with the war anyway.

> Apparently the UN and the EU were indeed powerless to remove him. Fortunately (in my view), we in America are not.
They were not "powerless", they were unwilling. We could open up a whole new topic on the power or powerlessness of the UN, but that would probably bust this board into oblivion :-).
> You also stated: "...We´re not living in the Dark Ages anymore. There are no barbarian armies at the gates threatening to overrun Washington (or Paris or Berlin or whatever). The terrorist menace causing all this mess is diffuse, it´s not focused into a single army or even a single nation you could attack and obliterate."
> My response to that is: I think that's a matter of perception. Afghanistan under the horrific rule of the Taliban was indeed very much a country that had been hurled back into the Dark Ages. The terrorist menace had largely been focused and centered in a single nation, in Afghanistan, with two separate armies or factions: the Taliban, which ruled the country with Medieval-style terror according to a style of Islam not seen since the 11th century or thereabouts, and Al-Qaeda, which used Afghanistan as its primary HQ and which essentially turned the Taliban into a 40,000 man bodyguard. The terrorist threat indeed became more diffused as the terrorists scattered and ran following our liberation of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was the one exception. You are right in saying that the war in Afghanistan was necessary. Not only because the Taliban had an inhumane regime there (a couple of other countries aournd the world have that as well), but mainly because there was irrefutable proof that Afghanistan served as the base for Al Quaida and other terrorist organisations (not all of them islamic, btw). You couldn´t talk to the Taliban and there was no other way than brute force to eliminate this major terrorist base. That, incidentally, is why all the other western states went along with the US in the Afghanistan war. Neither the french nor the germans nor the russians refused to send troops there. Why there and not in Iraq? Because Iraq was a completely different ballgame. There was no reason to invade Iraq other than removing an oppressive regime. Worse, there were lots of sensible reasons not to go into Iraq. George Bush sen. summed it up pretty well. When asked why he didn´t invade Iraq in the first Gulf war, he replied that an invasion would have forced the american troops to stay there as an occupation force for a long, long time. The situation in Iraq now is exactly the kind of situation he wanted to avoid: enormous cost in human lives (american and Iraqi) and in tax dollars, insurgency all over the place and no likelihood that the country will gain a genuinely stable democratic system in the foreseeable future. Bottom line: George junior should have listened to his dad.

> You also stated: ..."That´s the main thing the Bush administration fails to understand: military invasions of "axis-of-evil" states will not help them or the world fight terrorism." Well, I partly disagree with that. Al-Qaeda's operations have been seriously disrupted by their forcible eviction from Afghanistan. That is likely one reason why there have been no major attacks upon the US since 9/11. The reason the terrorists are on the defensive is because we put them on the defensive, by hunting them where they live.
Ok, I´ll grant you that: Afghanistan is the one exception where an invasion made sense. See my above statements.
> Finally, you asked: "...Another point about Prof. Reynolds´ observations: he advocates strengthening the UN militarily so the US won´t have to do the job all by themselves. On the other hand, he refuses to give up one iota of US sovereignty to the UN. So how is a strong UN going to work if the US refuse to participate in it?" My response is: Simple, put the US and other Western or Western-oriented powers back in control of and in charge of the UN. Include Russia, China, Israel, Egypt and India in that group. Rebuild the UN's military capabilities from the ground up using the forces of the nations on the Security Council.
Ok, sounds reasonable, so far....
> And abolish entirely the UN General Assembly, which has served as a sympathetic forum to terrorism as far back as 1974 when it welcomed a speech by a pistol-carrying Yasser Arafat just two years after the slaughter of Israeli athletes at Munich.
So how would you have the UN take decisions then? You need some kind of a democratic forum where all nations can have their say and you need some kind of an executive with "teeth" to control the military. What would you suggest?

Robert Clancy, Dublin, Ireland

Hello all,
I've been reading this thread with interest. As an Irishman with family living in the US (they emigrated to New York in the 1960s like so many others when things looked pretty bleak here) my views on the so-called US-European schism are somewhat mixed. I have visited the US many times and I have also spent time in 'old Europe'. I feel that, despite the polarised viewpoints expressed in this thread, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think if people would come down from their respective soap boxes and thought about it they would have to admit that neither Europe nor the US is on the road to hell. As was expressed by someone earlier in this thread, you can find idiots everywhere but most people are fundamentally decent. One particular debate rages on in Ireland: who are we spiritally closer to - Boston or Berlin? Given the current international climate many people would say Berlin. Personally I think we take the best of both worlds. And there's nothing wrong with that! As for Bush, he's on the way out in less than four years. And if the Democrats really want the White House back, they'll have to put up a better fight than last time round.

Kai, China

dont konw why bush administration is so stubborn and sdtupid ,they really impress the world terrible and bring shame on american .

Scott Loranger, American (European at heart)

I would suggest that Europe ask nothing of George W. Bush or the United States, because your questions will fall on deaf ears. The results of the election demonstrate how much the American public values the opinion of Europe (or the rest of the free world for that matter). I understand Europe had the best interests of itself and America in mind when urged Americans to toss Bush out, but ignorant, biggoted, homophobic, racist, flag waving, Bible-thumping Christian Americans wouldn't listen. I give Europe and liberal America my deepest apologies. I will suggest something the European Union's Lead Commissioner, Jose Manuel Barroso, can do: make the European Union stronger. Stimulate the euro-economy, build up a military for the EU, politically integrate the member-states further. And for God's sake, fix your two biggest social crises: slow population growth and the welfare system. Start having babies again and make the lazy free-loaders get a job. The EU should not be so quick to align itself with the US if the US is not acting responibly. The EU is a powerful political entity in its own right now, it is capable of independent actions and shouldn't just role over for the US as is has in the past. I applaud Chirac and Shrodder for being courageous enough to take a stand against the US hegemony in world affairs.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian:
You stated correctly that "US foreign policy was never bent on acquiring an empire or ruling other parts of the world." It still isn't. You also stated that "On the contrary, ever since the Monroe doctrine, US foreign policy used to be very reluctant to intervene anywhere outside the US. Before Bush, people would probably have called the US "isolationists" rather than "imperialists"." That is still the case. When Bush was first elected in 2000, Europeans were immediately alarmed at what they saw as a willingness by Bush and the US to withdraw from foreign affairs. And once again, Europeans labeled the US as "isolationist". You further stated: "In essence, this doctrine means the US can intervene militarily anywhere in the world if it thinks its interests, particularly its security interests, are threatened, and even before any actual attack on the US itself occurs." That, in my opinion, is exactly how it should be. Nations have not "merely" the Right, but furthermore the Obligation, to protect and defend their national interests. After Sept. 11 2001, I am no longer willing to patiently wait until the actual attack on the US itself occurs and thousands more Americans die, merely so that I could say that we were "in the moral 'Right' ". I don't care about being Morally Right. I care about saving Americans' lives. If that makes me "morally in the Wrong" for not patiently waiting for thousands more Americans to be slaughtered a'la 9/11 merely so that we could say "ok, we were attacked, it's now 'acceptable' for us to respond", so be it. I can live with that. I don't want to be "morally Right", I want to WIN. I don't want to wait for someone to kill my family so that I'm "morally justified" in responding. I want live Americans, not dead martyrs to "international law". I'm not interested in me or my family becoming "noble victims who died for international law". I want to kill the Enemy BEFORE they can kill me or my family. I want to attack them BEFORE they can attack us, and by doing so thereby PREVENT them from attacking us. If Clinton had been thinking with the correct "head" and had attacked and invaded Afghanistan in the 1990s, as I believe he rightfully should have, 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C. might still be alive.
You also wrote: "In these cases, it will not even consult with other states (though it might inform some of them it considers to be its allies beforehand, but that´s optional, too)." Informing allies IS consulting, in my opinion. "Consulting" does not mean in any way, shape or form that we have to "ask your permission or consent" before we carry out actions deemed vital to our national security. What you want is the "right" to have a veto over our policies. And that's not going to happen -- not now, not ever. You want to have a "right" to tell us that we can't do what we feel we need to do in order to protect our country. And that's completely unacceptable.
You also wrote: "That, IMO, is imperialism, plain and simple, not because the US wants to rule over other states, but because they act in flagrant disregard of any international laws and treaties." IMO, Any "international law or treaty" that "requires" us in America to wait until we have 3,000 more dead bodies before the "international community" gives us the "Official Okey-Dokey" to defend ourselves, is an "international law or treaty" that we should be abrogating and withdrawing from immediately.
We now live in a much more dangerous world than existed pre-9/11, a world in which terrorists and the rogue regimes that nurtured or tolerated them (Libya and East Germany in the 1980s, for example) openly aspire to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction. With all due respect to our easily-kerfuffled "allies", I am not interested in patiently waiting and refraining from military action until a mushroom cloud is rising over an American city (to be followed, no doubt, by yet another French Looney-Toon "conspiracy theorist" writing a book and making a million dollars by arguing that the nuclear holocaust was "engineered by the CIA", as has already happened in post-9/11 France and on these very bulletin boards).

Carol Lucena, Brazil

What else does he needs to continue the war?In my point of view he is a terorist.You dont´n need money, what do you want more?

Mary, UK

I think that the policy of bush administration will not change towards arab and muslim world...he want to be the master and we are just slaves..

John Dickason, USA

I applaud Toby of Berlin for hinting at what many Americans will ever realize: that terrorism will never be eradicated through military means. George W. Bush is the chief recruiter for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations. His arrogance, bravado, and self-assured fundamentalist religious beliefs make that a done deal. Idealistic arguments for overthrowing Saddam Hussein just don't hold water. If the Bush administration really believed the stuff about weapons of mass destruction, then they were seriously paranoid. I personally believe that it was all a smokescreen for GW to try to avenge his good old Daddy and to try to finish the job started during the Gulf War. And what have we accomplished? We have brought a nation to the brink of civil war and created a huge training ground for budding terrorists. If G.W. is such a good christian, he really should pay attention to the words of Jesus Christ a little more (not the old testament, which reads like a blood and guts horror novel). We have killed thousands of our own soldiers and maybe 100,000 Iraqis because of paranoia and stupid choices by GW Bush and co. To stand up and say that we are doing this in the name of God makes me want to vomit. We will never win the "war of ideas" because GW and his administration don't have any meaningful, culturally relevant ideas to pitch to any of the middle eastern populations. I'd like to ask Iraqis on the street of Baghdad if they feel "liberated." Do they feel free? They take their lives in their hands by even going to a polling station. And even if the election happens as scheduled, will that advance the current state of affairs? It will likely only create a Shiite religious administration that will further stoke the flames of Sunni on Shia enmity. By making such a shambles of Iraq, Bush has poisoned any future potential gains that could be made through diplomacy by his or any near-future administrations in the middle east. You don't get people to see things your way by bombing innocents (albeit unintentionally), allowing thugs to kidnap their children, making them live in the dark, and depriving them of safe drinking water and jobs. That's what we have effectively done in many parts of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was despicable, but GW Bush is irresponsible and dangerous, and has done far more evil, creating lasting damage, in the world in four short years than Saddam did in his entire autocratic rein. A paradigm shift is needed. I don't need any lectures by fundamentalists about how the killing is justified because of some higher moral. It isn't. This is the same argument used by Osama Bin Laden. Bush and he are alike in many respects. We have blood on our hands and what our government has done is shameful. What we need is to foster goodwill towards America through helping those in need throughout the world, regardless of their race, color, religion, or sexual orientation. We are quick to spend on missiles and bombs but slow to spend effort and money on development projects without an immediate and clear bottom line for big business.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Scott Loranger wrote: "The results of the election demonstrate how much the American public values the opinion of Europe (or the rest of the free world for that matter)." Exactly. I have no problem with this at all. That's exactly how it should be. Just precisely who the hell is Europe, anyway, to presume to "tell" us in America who we in America should vote for? We in America don't feel a "need" to interject ourselves into Europe's or Canada's elections. Quite frankly and bluntly, most Americans probably could not care less, in my opinion, who Europeans vote to elect. It's none of our business. Likewise, it is none of Europeans' business whom we choose as our elected leader. The idea that Europeans are somehow "affected" by our political choices, and that this somehow translates to their having some "right" to participate in U.S. elections, has been around for a long time, and it is pure bunkum. Canada's political decisions affect the U.S. all the time. Canada's government's decision in 1965 to seize control of the health sector and to Communize their health insurance system led to layoffs and job losses in U.S. health insurers who were evicted from Canada. Did Americans delusionally rationalize that this fallout from Canada's policies gave Americans some fictitious "right" to participate in Canadian politics, to vote out the ruling Canadian government and to overturn those policies we objected to? Not a chance. Scott Loranger also wrote: "I understand Europe had the best interests of itself and America in mind when urged Americans to toss Bush out.....". I disagree. Europe definitely had its own best interests (and prejudices) in mind. Europe wanted America to agree to elect a European-style leader with European-style values (more Big Government social programs, confiscatory taxes, the socialization of whole sectors of the economy). Those values are antithetical to the values of many Americans. Those are Europe's values. They're not America's values.
Scott Loranger further wrote: "....but ignorant, bigoted, homophobic, racist, flag waving, Bible-thumping Christian Americans wouldn't listen." For which I thank God. Yes, I wave the flag of America. I'm a flag-waver. And I'm proud of it. If Scott has a problem with that, too bad. I'm going to keep right on doing it. I won't stop. Yes, many Americans believe in the Bible and base their lives and decisions on its rules. Again, if Scott doesn't like that, too bad. He should go live somewhere else. Yes, many Americans believe homosexuality is sinful and do not feel any "need" to "accept" or "accommodate" the homosexual lifestyle. Once again, if Scott doesn't like that, too bad. To accuse Bush supporters of being mindless racists (with no evidence to support it) is the height of ignorant bigotry on Scott's part. He is clearly bigoted and filled with hatred toward any American who waves the flag proudly, who believes in the Bible, who is a Christian, or who respectfully disagrees with the homosexual agenda. No doubt he would gleefully politically disenfranchise the targets of his hate if he could. How sadly ironic that Scott displays the same ignorant bigotry that he accuses others of.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Basically, they use the "might makes right" argument for that, and this is a very dangerous development." Well, I don't agree with that. It's not a matter of 'might makes right'. It's a matter of having, and keeping, the sovereign right as Americans to defend our national security interests, wherever those interests are threatened. And that's not a new right that we are asserting. In the early 19th century, the U.S. government sent warships halfway around the world to crush Barbary Coast pirates who were seizing and plundering American ships and cargos and murdering American seamen. That's where the U.S. Marines' anthem, "...to the shores of Tripoli" came from.
Michel Bastian wrote: "There wasn´t any real threat to the US from Iraq. Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD and he wasn´t the only dictator seeking to build them." Well, again, that's a matter of opinion and perception. Saddam's regime was certainly a threat to his neighbors, against whom he launched two unprovoked wars in two decades. He was a threat to our friend and ally Israel, upon whom he rained unprovoked death and destruction in 1991. His regime spent decades trying to build, buy or steal WMD components, and there are still numerous politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who believed at the time that it was certainly plausible that Saddam's regime possessed WMDs. Michel Bastian wrote: "The threat posed by North Korea to the US (and the rest of the world) is infinitely more real, yet the US haven´t started an invasion there. Pakistan is a politically unstable country with WMD. Why hasn´t Washington asked them (and India, while you´re at it) to dismantle their nuclear arsenal if they´re so into preemptive strategies?". A Liberation of North Korea is long overdue. It's impractical because the North Korean regime and Army (the only parts of North Korean society that aren't slowly starving to death) maintain enough artillery near the DMZ to kill tens of thousands of South Koreans who are (supposedly, and for the present moment) supposedly our "allies". Pakistan is a vital ally in the War On Terror, and we need Pakistan's cooperation if we are to have a chance of defeating Al-Qaeda on the terrorists' own turf.
Michel Bastian wrote: "George Bush Senior summed it up pretty well. When asked why he didn´t invade Iraq in the first Gulf war, he replied that an invasion would have forced the american troops to stay there as an occupation force for a long, long time. The situation in Iraq now is exactly the kind of situation he wanted to avoid: enormous cost in human lives (american and Iraqi) and in tax dollars, insurgency all over the place and no likelihood that the country will gain a genuinely stable democratic system in the foreseeable future. Bottom line: George junior should have listened to his dad." And that decision in 1991 by former Pres. George Bush Senior was totally, utterly, tragically wrong. Former Pres. George Bush (Senior) was too worried in 1991 about "world public opinion" and too frightened of the then-Coalition collapsing if the U.S. decided to keep driving into Iraq and liberate the country. Instead, he called upon untrained and virtually unarmed Kurds and Shi'ites to mount an uprising against the remnants of Saddam's well-equipped forces. The result was a horrific slaughter of the Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ites which the US military, the most powerful force in the region, did nothing to prevent. This in turn led to the imposition of U.N. sanctions which Saddam skillfully used to deflect blame from his own inhuman regime and which leftists and other anti-Americans labeled "barbaric" and blamed for thousands of supposed Iraqi civilian deaths. All of which could have been completely avoided if Pres. George Bush (Senior) had simply ignored so-called "world public opinion" and ordered US troops to drive on Baghdad. Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s decision in 1991 not to Liberate Iraq allowed Saddam's murderous regime to survive for another 11 years and to kill hundreds of thousands of people, principally Iraqi citizens. Former Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s decision NOT to invade Iraq in the first Gulf War was tragically, horrifically, totally, utterly wrong. Thirteen years later, that tragically wrong decision has finally been corrected.

 

Michel Bastian wrote: "So how would you have the UN take decisions then? You need some kind of a democratic forum where all nations can have their say and you need some kind of an executive with "teeth" to control the military. What would you suggest?"
I suggest that the Security Council alone can make the necessary decisions and control the military. I don't believe "all" nations "need" to have their say. I would completely ignore most of the Third World with their ranting, rambling, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-semitic, anti-Israel, dictator-loving views. I would completely disenfranchise them. Kick their butts out of the U.N. completely. Let them go set up their own alternative forum where they can rant to their hearts' content. And let them pay for it on their own. If they can. And if they can't pay for it on their own -- then that's just Tough Luck For Them. Too Bad, So Sad. Cry me a river.

 

Michel Bastian wrote: "The US didn´t "wait patiently". Before 9/11 they were just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the rest of the security council. They didn´t have a reason to." I think it is more correct to say that "Bill Clinton" was just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the rest of the Security Council. Clinton's first military adventure in Somalia turned out to be the utter disaster that he had been warned it would be. That, combined with his inexperience with the military and his lack of credibility on military matters, probably caused him to settle for keeping Saddam "penned in" and playing the endless game of enforcing the "No-Fly" Zones and bombing any Iraqis that fired at US or British aircraft.
Of course, that still enraged the anti-Americans / pro-Saddamists / Euro-leftists, who couldn't have cared less if the Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shi'ites got slaughtered by Saddam, who denounced the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones, who denounced the bombing of the Iraqi gun and missile sites that fired at US/British aircraft, and who labeled the U.N. economic sanctions as supposedly "murderous".

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> You stated correctly that "US foreign policy was never bent on acquiring an empire or ruling other parts of the world." It still isn't. You also stated that "On the contrary, ever since the Monroe doctrine, US foreign policy used to be very reluctant to intervene anywhere outside the US. Before Bush, people would probably have called the US "isolationists" rather than "imperialists"." That is still the case.
Beg to differ here, for the reasons given in my last post.
> When Bush was first elected in 2000, Europeans were immediately alarmed at what they saw as a willingness by Bush and the US to withdraw from foreign affairs. And once again, Europeans labeled the US as "isolationist".
There were voices in Europe (mainly in the press) that thought the US under Bush might go back to their Monroe doctrin, yes.
> You further stated: "In essence, this doctrine means the US can intervene militarily anywhere in the world if it thinks its interests, particularly its security interests, are threatened, and even before any actual attack on the US itself occurs." That, in my opinion, is exactly how it should be. Nations have not "merely" the Right, but furthermore the Obligation, to protect and defend their national interests.
Like I said, dangerous doctrin. That gives any nation, not just the US, the right to launch attacks on other countries with the excuse of "preemptive" action. And indeed, it gave the US an excuse to launch a completely unnecessary and illegal war on Iraq.
> After Sept. 11 2001, I am no longer willing to patiently wait until the actual attack on the US itself occurs and thousands more Americans die, merely so that I could say that we were "in the moral 'Right' ". I don't care about being Morally Right. I care about saving Americans' lives. If that makes me "morally in the Wrong" for not patiently waiting for thousands more Americans to be slaughtered a'la 9/11 merely so that we could say "ok, we were attacked, it's now 'acceptable' for us to respond", so be it. I can live with that. I don't want to be "morally Right", I want to WIN. I don't want to wait for someone to kill my family so that I'm "morally justified" in responding. I want live Americans, not dead martyrs to "international law". I'm not interested in me or my family becoming "noble victims who died for international law". I want to kill the Enemy BEFORE they can kill me or my family. I want to attack them BEFORE they can attack us, and by doing so thereby PREVENT them from attacking us.
In the light of 9/11, I can understand your argument, though I don´t agree. Many, many americans were so shocked by 9/11 that they reacted just like you did: kill them before they can kill us. Forget international law if it endagers our own people.
The problem with that is that the preemptive strike doctrin can be used to justify almost any war. It was used to justify Iraq, although there was no actual threat against the US there.
There is a reason to international laws, and they´re not just the "impediment to survival" the Bush administration make them out to be. The war in Afghanistan is the best example: it went according to international law and with a UN mandate. All the allies were with the US and now you at least have a semblance of stability there due to the underlying perception in the afghan population that this was a necessary war backed by the international community rather than a crusade by the US. US interests are preserved as well as the interests of the international community. Iraq is the exact opposite: the war was completely unnecessary, accordingly it did not pass the scrutiny of the international community and promptly was taken to be an "imperialist crusade" by the arab and muslim world. The result, predictably, is chaos.
> If Clinton had been thinking with the correct "head" and had attacked and invaded Afghanistan in the 1990s, as I believe he rightfully should have, 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C. might still be alive.
Clinton made a mistake. The mistake was not that he didn´t invade Afghanistan, the mistake was that he didn´t focus on killing off Al Quaida and particularly Bin Laden enough. I understand the CIA even had Bin Laden in their sights at one point and could have killed him. Why they didn´t is beyond me. After that, Al Quaida had a chance to grow and develop in Afghanistan to a point that you couldn´t do anything against them without first invading Afghanistan.
> You also wrote: "In these cases, it will not even consult with other states (though it might inform some of them it considers to be its allies beforehand, but that´s optional, too)." Informing allies IS consulting, in my opinion. "Consulting" does not mean in any way, shape or form that we have to "ask your permission or consent" before we carry out actions deemed vital to our national security.
The word "consent" means that you have to convince us (and not just us, all the other allies as well) that the war you want to wage is for a good reason if you want our participation. The US did that in Afghanistan. They didn´t in Iraq because they couldn´t: it wasn´t a necessary and just war. Instead, the US administration tried to pressure and browbeat us into a war that was more than just "not necessary", it was actually counterproductive. The results were, like I said, pretty much predictable.
>What you want is the "right" to have a veto over our policies. And that's not going to happen -- not now, not ever. You want to have a "right" to tell us that we can't do what we feel we need to do in order to protect our country. And that's completely unacceptable.
Again, you´re wrong. We don´t want to dictate your policies to you. We want a right to have a veto over any action IF you want us to participate. If you do not respect that right, fair enough, but you´ll be on your own. We are not going to help you start wars all over the place if it´s not an absolute necessity to your or our own security interests. War is much too serious a matter for that. Also, I think the Bush administration has a distinct tendency to only see american lives as important. Never mind if hundreds of thousands of non-Americans get tortured, maimed or killed in the process, the main thing is that no american is killed or harmed. That´s saying an american life is worth more than a few thousand foreign lives. Pure cynicism, if you ask me.

> You also wrote: "That, IMO, is imperialism, plain and simple, not because the US wants to rule over other states, but because they act in flagrant disregard of any international laws and treaties." IMO, Any "international law or treaty" that "requires" us in America to wait until we have 3,000 more dead bodies before the "international community" gives us the "Official Okey-Dokey" to defend ourselves, is an "international law or treaty" that we should be abrogating and withdrawing from immediately.
The requirement is not that there be 3.000 dead americans before you can start a war. The requirement is that you only engage in war as a last resort AND if there is a necessity for war. Iraq failed on both counts.

> We now live in a much more dangerous world than existed pre-9/11, a world in which terrorists and the rogue regimes that nurtured or tolerated them (Libya and East Germany in the 1980s, for example) openly aspire to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction.
Hmph, I wouldn´t know that East Germany openly aspires to WMD nowadays :-). But I agree, the world is more dangerous, not mainly because of 9/11, but because of Bush´s war in Iraq.
> With all due respect to our easily-kerfuffled "allies",
We´re not "easily kerfuffled". As most americans, you seem to think we only disagreed on Iraq out of self-centredness, to prove that "hey, we´re important, too". You´re very much mistaken. That´s not the point. The point, however, is that we have fundamentally different views on how the international community is going to work in the next decades. We think it shouldn´t just be an extension of the oval office, and Iraq is a classic example of why we hold that view.
> I am not interested in patiently waiting and refraining from military action until a mushroom cloud is rising over an American city
Unfortunately, you´re much more likely to see such a mushroom cloud after the Iraq war.
> (to be followed, no doubt, by yet another French Looney-Toon "conspiracy theorist" writing a book and making a million dollars by arguing that the nuclear holocaust was "engineered by the CIA", as has already happened in post-9/11 France and on these very bulletin boards).
Oh, please, spare me the anti-french rethoric. Shall I look at all the yank crackpots that go around saying that "France is the actual enemy" (and also making millions with books on that subject, incidentally)?

Michel Bastian, France

> Scott Loranger wrote: "The results of the election demonstrate how much the American public values the opinion of Europe (or the rest of the free world for that matter)." Exactly. I have no problem with this at all. That's exactly how it should be. Just precisely who the hell is Europe, anyway, to presume to "tell" us in America who we in America should vote for?
There were indeed some unfortunate public attempts at influencing the american presidential election (most notably the Guardian´s action in Ohio), and I have to agree that they weren´t in order (though I still am an avid Guardian reader, as you might imagine; I also read the NY Times, the german Spiegel and Le Monde in France, so that probably makes me a eurocommie in your book). America will make up its own mind and has a right to do this, like any other country has. Of course, these attempts backfired, as they would in Europe as well (try to tell a british, german or french citizen how to vote and they´ll just shrug and ignore you in the best of cases; in the worst of cases they´ll change their vote AGAINST your favoured candidate, which is what happened quite a few times in the US, I gather).
> We in America don't feel a "need" to interject ourselves into Europe's or Canada's elections.
Americans as such, no, but the american government, yes. Before the last german parliamentary elections, when Schröder had already stated that he wasn´t going to participate in the Iraq war if he got reelected, the american government made it quite clear that they endorsed his opponent. And I´m pretty sure that Tony Blair´s largest support base in the upcoming british elections will be the american government ;-).
> The idea that Europeans are somehow "affected" by our political choices, and that this somehow translates to <...> to vote out the ruling Canadian government and to overturn those policies we objected to? Not a chance.
Everybody is affected by the current administration´s foreign policies, not just the europeans. That´s the problem. The scope of Bush´s foreign policy turns the US into an american elephant in the world´s china store: you can´t expect the shop owner not to protest. That doesn´t give the rest of the world a right to vote in the US, of course, but us non-americans are sure going to continue to rant on against Bush´s foreign policy. Sorry, mate, that´s our right too.
> Scott Loranger also wrote: "I understand Europe had the best interests of itself and America in mind when urged Americans to toss Bush out.....". I disagree. Europe definitely had its own best interests (and prejudices) in mind. Europe wanted America to agree to elect a European-style leader with European-style values (more Big Government social programs, confiscatory taxes, the socialization of whole sectors of the economy).
You´re making three mistakes here: one: there is no such thing as a "european style leader". If you actually examine all the european political leaders you´ll see that they all have their distinctive "style", if you want to call it that. Two: that bit about "big social programs, confiscatory taxes" etc. is getting old. I´m tired of repeating myself on this subject, so read my other posts (again). And Three: you still didn´t get what Europe´s goals are because you still do not understand the nature of the EU. You think of it as a nation, like the US, that will always act in its own best interest and the rest be damned. Again: the EU is not a nation, it is a union of nations, with a common basic denominator, but other than that each nation has its own agendas and goals. That´s why some of the EU members supported Iraq while others didn´t. Due to the EU´s history, though, it tends to use diplomatic action first before it starts considering military options, which is what the Bush government apparently doesn´t do. Latest case in point: Iran.
> Those values are antithetical to the values of many Americans. Those are Europe's values. They're not America's values.
Oh, so you´re the voice of America now. I bet the 49% who didn´t vote for Bush will have a word or two to say about that.
> Scott Loranger further wrote: "....but ignorant, bigoted, homophobic, racist, flag waving, Bible-thumping Christian Americans wouldn't listen." For which I thank God. Yes, I wave the flag of America. I'm a flag-waver. And I'm proud of it. If Scott has a problem with that, too bad. I'm going to keep right on doing it. I won't stop.
Fair enough, that´s your right, just remember that flag wavers tend to get their vision obstructed by the flag they´re waving.
> Yes, many Americans believe in the Bible and base their lives and decisions on its rules. Again, if Scott doesn't like that, too bad. He should go live somewhere else. Yes, many Americans believe homosexuality is sinful and do not feel any "need" to "accept" or "accommodate" the homosexual lifestyle. Once again, if Scott doesn't like that, too bad. To accuse Bush supporters of being mindless racists (with no evidence to support it) is the height of ignorant bigotry on Scott's part. He is clearly bigoted and filled with hatred toward any American who waves the flag proudly, who believes in the Bible, who is a Christian, or who respectfully disagrees with the homosexual agenda.
That´s good, you´re making progress. "Respectful disagreement" is acceptable. Gay bashing, however, is not.

Michel Bastian, France

> Michel Bastian wrote: "There wasn´t any real threat to the US from Iraq. Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD and he wasn´t the only dictator seeking to build them." Well, again, that's a matter of opinion and perception.
Nope, that´s a matter of fact. At the time of the invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD nor any ties to Al Quaida or other terrorist organisations, period. He was in no way a threat to american security interests.
> Saddam's regime was certainly a threat to his neighbors, against whom he launched two unprovoked wars in two decades.
One of which the US actively promoted, but that´s another story.
Actually, in 2003 his military was a threat to no one, as the subsequent american invasion showed.
> He was a threat to our friend and ally Israel, upon whom he rained unprovoked death and destruction in 1991.
Yes, he did that with Scud missiles. What are Scud missiles? WMD. Did he have WMD in 2003? No. So where was the threat to Israel?
And even if there had been a threat, does the preemptive strike doctrine extend to all the potential allies of the US, too? If it does, then you have a huge danger of proliferation. What if Pakistan wants a preemptive strike against India (or the other way round)? What if South Korea wants a preemptive strike against North Korea? The preemptive strike doctrin is bad enough as it is, but if you extend it to all your potential, perceived or possible allies, it´s just an excuse for the US to start wars wherever they want whenever they want, without even the pretense of a threat to american security. Don´t tell me that´s not imperialism.
> His regime spent decades trying to build, buy or steal WMD components, and there are still numerous politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who believed at the time that it was certainly plausible that Saddam's regime possessed WMDs.
Yes, and they´ve all been proven wrong, haven´t they. The UN inspectors had stated pretty clearly that they didn´t find any WMD before the war, so at the very least, the Bush administration should have done its homework better. It should have investigated much more thoroughly instead of sending Powell to the UN with dubious "evidence" for WMD to justify an unjustifiable war. When Joschka Fischer made his "I am not convinced" speech to Rumsfeld in Munich before the war, he knew what he was talking about. > Michel Bastian wrote: "The threat posed by North Korea <...> A Liberation of North Korea is long overdue. It's impractical because the North Korean regime and Army (the only parts of North Korean society that aren't slowly starving to death) maintain enough artillery near the DMZ to kill tens of thousands of South Koreans who are (supposedly, and for the present moment) supposedly our "allies".
Why do you put that word in brackets? If I was a South Korean I´d start to worry if the Bush administration used the term "supposedly our allies". Fortunately, the Bush administration doesn´t (at least not in public ;-)).
North Korea is indeed a threat (because of the nuclear technology they have built up), but the Bush administration seems to have understood that an invasion of North Korea wouldn´t be the right way to go. So much for the preemptive strike doctrin.

>Pakistan is a vital ally in the War On Terror, and we need Pakistan's cooperation if we are to have a chance of defeating Al-Qaeda on the terrorists' own turf.
Well, it´s an ally now. That could change the moment Musharraf gets moved out of office, either by elections or by gunshot. How many assassination attempts did he survive again? If there´s ever a mullah regime in Pakistan, the US´ll be sorry they didn´t negotiate with Pakistan and India about scuttling the A-Bombs. Also, if Pakistan´s such a good ally, why didn´t they catch Bin Laden yet?
> <..> And that decision in 1991 by former Pres. George Bush Senior was totally, utterly, tragically wrong. Former Pres. George Bush (Senior) was too worried in 1991 about "world public opinion" and too frightened of the then-Coalition collapsing if the U.S. decided to keep driving into Iraq and liberate the country.
Nope, he just wasn´t too keen on invading Iraq, destabilizing the middle-east, alienating his european allies and having to maintain a massive american military presence in Iraq for decades.
> Instead, he called upon untrained and virtually unarmed Kurds and Shi'ites to mount an uprising against the remnants of Saddam's well-equipped forces. The result was a horrific slaughter of the Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ites which the US military, the most powerful force in the region, did nothing to prevent.
You can´t blame Bush sen. for crimes Saddam committed, especially since to my knowledge, he didn´t "call upon" the Kurds and Shi´ites. He and his allies (UK and France) moved troops to northern and southern Iraq to protect the Kurds and Shi´ites shortly afterwards. So don´t blame the US for something the US didn´t do.
> This in turn led to the imposition of U.N. sanctions which Saddam skillfully used to deflect blame from his own inhuman regime and which leftists and other anti-Americans labeled "barbaric" and blamed for thousands of supposed Iraqi civilian deaths.
Smokescreening again. The UN sanctions (and the ensuing civilian deaths, which, inicdentally, weren´t „supposed‰, they were real) ultimately led to the oil-for-food programme, and no government ever blamed the US for anything to do with the UN sanctions (except, perhaps, Saddam himself). Nobody that mattered ever really believed Saddam´s propaganda. Nobody ever really disputed that his regime was inhumane. I already stated this, but it seems I have to repeat myself: I´m not denying that Saddam´s regime was inhumane and criminal. That´s not the issue.

> All of which could have been completely avoided if Pres. George Bush (Senior) had simply ignored so-called "world public opinion" and ordered US troops to drive on Baghdad. Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s decision in 1991 not to Liberate Iraq allowed Saddam's murderous regime to survive for another 11 years and to kill hundreds of thousands of people, principally Iraqi citizens. Former Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s decision NOT to invade Iraq in the first Gulf War was tragically, horrifically, totally, utterly wrong.
Like I said, the one who´s totally, horrifically and utterly wrong here is Bush junior, not Bush senior. Bush senior didn´t send thousands of american troops and countless more Iraqis (military and civilians) to their death for phoney reasons. He didn´t destabilize the whole middle east for the next two or three decades, thereby provoking many more casualties and much more destruction than Saddam could ever have. He didn´t break up decade-old alliances and provoke a massive rift with Europe and finally, he didn´t provide every muslim extremist and his brother with an ideal rallying point.
> I suggest that the Security Council alone can make the necessary decisions and control the military. I don't believe "all" nations "need" to have their say. I would completely ignore most of the Third World with their ranting, rambling, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-semitic, anti-Israel, dictator-loving views.
Either you don´t know (and don´t care) a lot about third world countries (which is what I suspect) or you´re being deliberately polemic. Very democratic solution you´re proposing. Not acceptable, really, especially if you put the military under UN command.
> I would completely disenfranchise them. Kick their butts out of the U.N. completely. Let them go set up their own alternative forum where they can rant to their hearts' content. And let them pay for it on their own. If they can. And if they can't pay for it on their own -- then that's just Tough Luck For Them. Too Bad, So Sad. Cry me a river.
So it´s ok to invade their countries and exploit their resources but if they can´t pay their way into the UN and, worse, if they dare to speak against the US, kick them out? Some humanitarian and democratically minded citizen you are.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "The US didn´t "wait patiently". Before 9/11 they were just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the rest of the security council. They didn´t have a reason to." I think it is more correct to say that "Bill Clinton" was just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the rest of the Security Council. Clinton's first military adventure in Somalia turned out to be the utter disaster that he had been warned it would be. That, combined with his inexperience with the military and his lack of credibility on military matters, probably caused him to settle for keeping Saddam "penned in" and playing the endless game of enforcing the "No-Fly" Zones and bombing any Iraqis that fired at US or British aircraft.
Well Clinton wasn´t a military man, that´s true. He didn´t have to be, because the strategy the US and its allies, as well as the UN, were running in Iraq was completely ok and it worked: in ten years Saddam couldn´t manage to build up his WMD stock and was a threat to no one. There was no reason to invade it, just as there was no reason to invade it after 9/11. Incidentally, Bush is far from being a military genius himself.
> Of course, that still enraged the anti-Americans / pro-Saddamists / Euro-leftists, who couldn't have cared less if the Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shi'ites got slaughtered by Saddam, who denounced the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones, who denounced the bombing of the Iraqi gun and missile sites that fired at US/British aircraft, and who labeled the U.N. economic sanctions as supposedly "murderous".
That´s ridiculous, Phil, and you know it. Every time you´re out of arguments, you start invoking anti-Americans, Euro-leftists and god knows which other obscure group of evil-doers. You´re starting to sound like Sen. McCarthy.
Nobody denounced the US/UK for defending themselves (incidentally, there were other nations enforcing the no-fly zone as well, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten about those). Some humanitarian groups argued that the economic sanctions were hurting the population more than the Iraqi government, and that´s what led to the oil for food programme. But I don´t know of anyone who „couldn´t have cared less‰ for the Kurds an Shi´ites (the Kuwaitis weren´t getting „slaughtered‰ anymore by that time, coalition forces had already kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, remember?).

Jonny F. Trahan, USA, Louisana

President Bush has done well under fire, Period. We have two choices, 1. We allow the paper lion of the U.N. to dictate to us what we will or will not do. There are even Morons in the United States government who think there is some legitimacy within that organization. The only thing legitimate about the U.N. is that it is almost wholly funded by the United States. Lets be real, without the U.S. the world would have nothing to complain about. There would be no convition, because everyone else hates morality (right?) or at least they critize our citizens for desiring a moral society. What Pigs! The would be no economy, no one would have anyone to borrow money from. But, the UN can critize us for not giving enough to Tusnami aid. Like we have not been paying the world's bills for about 100 or so years. but i digress. 2. We can tell the UN to Shove it and enforce its threats like they should be enforced. The United States has brougth some since of reality to what the world fears in the UN.
Saddam did not have to have WMD's to deserve to go. He has been breaking the rules for 13+years. Just because the EU puppet Billy Clinton did not react on it does not mean the there are not still rules. Not to mention, the scandal which is unfloding in the oil for food program. The UN and its KA leadership simply wants as much money as the US so the lie, cheat, and steal. Its becasue they hate morality, right? Bush did the right thing, and the way you can tell is by the very people that do support him and the ones who do not.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian:
RE: the ongoing discussion about the ICC, here is another piece of interesting news...
German justices consider trying Rumsfeld
BERLIN, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- A German court spokesman said Friday no decision had been made on whether to prosecute U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal.
The daily Tagesspiegel reported German justice authorities would not act on a criminal complaint filed by an international legal team in November against Rumsfeld and other U.S. senior officials because no German nationals were involved.
But a German court spokesman said: "We have yet to decide whether or not to pursue the charge."
Tagesspiegel said German law prevents federal Prosecutor Kay Nehm from taking legal action unless Germans were involved -- either as suspects or victims.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331005/posts

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

John Dickason wrote: "George W. Bush is the chief recruiter for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations."
Perhaps you would explain something to me, Mr. Dickason: Who was the "chief recruiter for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations" back in 1998 when Al-Qaeda terrorists blew up US Embassies in Africa, killing hundreds and wounding thousands? Who was the "chief recruiter for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations" back in 2000 when Al-Qaeda terrorists blew up the USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors? For that matter, who was the ""chief recruiter for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations" back in 1993 when Al-Qaeda terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in NYC the FIRST time, killing 7 or so people and injuring over 1,000? I don't suppose you remember who was President of the US during all those attacks, would you -- someone named Bill Clinton?
John Dickason wrote: "If the Bush administration really believed the stuff about weapons of mass destruction, then they were seriously paranoid." Oh Really? Here's a few words on the subject by someone who was there at the time and who is in a better position to answer that question.Scientist: Gulf War stopped Iraqi weapons effort
OSLO, Norway - A scientist considered the father of Iraq‚s nuclear program said Thursday that his nation would have developed atomic weapons in the early 1990s had Saddam Hussein not ordered the invasion of Kuwait.
The invasion sparked the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which drove Iraq out of Kuwait and marked the end of Baghdad‚s nuclear and biological weapons program, said Jafar Dhia Jafar, the scientific head of Iraq‚s nuclear weapons program.
„By the end of 1990, about 8,000 people were involved directly or indirectly in the nuclear program,‰ said Jafar, presenting his new Norwegian-language book, „Oppdraget‰, which means The Assignment, describing the program.
„We were three years away, give or take a year,‰ said Jafar, who fled Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
In the book, Jafar describes being picked up in 1981 after 18 months in jail and brought to see Saddam, who, standing behind a desk in military uniform, instructed him to build an atomic bomb.
„From today, that is our goal,‰ Jafar recalled Hussein saying.
The British-educated scientist, with a doctorate in physics from the University of Birmingham, said the quest for nuclear weapons began with Israeli warplanes bombing the legal Iraqi nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, where he had worked, in June 1981.
„It was not illegal because it did not violate the NPT (the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons treaty),‰ he said. He said the program became top secret in 1986, when nuclear efforts moved beyond the terms of the treaty.
Jafar said Iraq sought to build all industrial and technological equipment needed to develop weapons on its own, sometimes importing equipment through oil or other industries.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6878997/

John Dickason wrote: "I personally believe that it was all a smokescreen for GW to try to avenge his good old Daddy and to try to finish the job started during the Gulf War.' Sounds great to me. If George H.W. Bush had finished the job started in 1990-1991 in the first Gulf War and had removed Saddam Hussein from power by force, thousands and thousands of Iraqis would still be alive today.
John Dickason wrote: "I'd like to ask Iraqis on the street of Baghdad if they feel "liberated." Do they feel free?" I believe I have an answer for Mr. Dickason.
Iraqi family‚s journey inspires hope
From Baghdad to San Diego and back
BAGHDAD - It has been said you can't go home again. The Naama family is trying to prove otherwise ˜ though their journey home has not been an easy one.
Ten years and 12,000 miles later, just days before Iraq's first competitive election, Abbas Naama and his daughter Esra are learning that arriving home in Iraq may have been the easy part.
Iraq had always been home to the Naama family. But it wasn't always liveable. In fact, in 1991, the father, Abbas, was in the resistance, against Saddam. It was a dangerous move back then.
At the height of Saddam's power it became clear to the family that their home was no longer safe. They couldn't stay here in Iraq. And so, like many threatened by Saddam's reign, they fled. Daughter Esra was only 11 years old.
"We saw some people being taken away and slaughtered," recalls Esra. "I remember seeing two guys hung in a palm tree."
When NBC News first met up with the Naama family, they were living their new life ˜ far from home, safe in San Diego. Iraq seemed gone, forever.
"It gave us a new life, a new beginning," says Esra. "America has fulfilled our dreams."
Then, unimaginably, Baghdad fell in April 2003. When it was clear that Saddam was no longer in power, when beloved icons of his ˜ like his Baath party headquarters ˜ were in ruins, that was the family's cue that it was safe to come home again.
We joined them for their emotional journey home, and saw that things would not be so simple.
"I feel a part of me wants to stay here and lend a hand to the people of my country," Esra told us. "But I still have my job and my life. I have to go back."
Now, the Naamas have become a portrait of a changing Iraq. The story lacks a tidy ending. Esra has traveled back and forth, unable to turn her back on an unsettled and violent homeland. But unwilling to settle here. Her brother, Mahmoud, returned to California to go to college, and on Friday, he actually voted in Iraq's election.
"We have to fight for what we want," he says.
Remarkably, one of the candidates he voted for was his own mother, Sabria. She's trying democracy on first hand, running for Parliament. The family fears for her safety. Like many here, she's campaigning quietly.
"It's not fair that we might lose my mom in this whole transition to democracy in Iraq," says Esra.
Meanwhile, their old house, destroyed years ago as punishment for leaving Saddam's Iraq, remains in ruins ˜ though the family patriarch remains hopeful.
"We will win freedom," says Abbas Naama. "We will win democracy in Iraq."
"This is our country," echoes his daughter. "These are our people. We owe it to them."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6881490/

John Dickason wrote: "And even if the election happens as scheduled, will that advance the current state of affairs? It will likely only create a Shiite religious administration that will further stoke the flames of Sunni on Shia enmity." So, are you saying that we "can't afford" to allow" the first free and democratic elections in Iraq for the first time in decades because the "wrong people" (the Shi'ites, a majority in Iraq who were savagely and gruesomely repressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni Muslims), might win?
John Dickason wrote: " Saddam Hussein was despicable, but GW Bush is irresponsible and dangerous, and has done far more evil, creating lasting damage, in the world in four short years than Saddam did in his entire autocratic rein." What utter rubbish, in my opinion. Perhaps Mr. Dickason was otherwise occupied when television sets around the world showed the footage of gaunt, emaciated, tortured Iraqi political prisoners (some as young as 10-years old) emerging at long last from Saddam's barbaric and sadistic prisons. The US killed far fewer people accidentally, than Saddam Hussein and his evil inhuman regime killed on purpose. Millions of Iraqi Shi'ites, Iraqi Kurds, political dissenters, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Israelis and others perished during Saddam's reign because of systematic torture, brutality or wars which Saddam started.

Michel Bastian, France

I wrote:
> And I´m sure you and I´ll agree that getting everybody to sign such a treaty is about as likely as snow in the Sahara by christmas.
Well, it wasn´t "by christmas", but according to latest news, there IS actually snow in the Sahara as of today (01-30-2005), so perhaps there is still hope for Kyoto yet ;-).

Charles Warren, USA

To Bastian > "There was no reason for the US to pull out of that one other than the fact it wouldn´t have been an american court controlled only by americans and run according to american rules." So clearly such a massive infringement on American sovereigny as the ICC would cost us much while giving us nothing at all. It would entail risks to which you have only responded, "You will just have to trust the political culture of Europe". Why should we ? You mean like the Belgian judges who were so eager to try Sharon but couldn't spare the time to try Marc Dutroux ?
Hey, we Americans live in a country where a vast number of citizens, probably a majority, believe that the federal government has no right to control their possession of firearms. Do you seriously believe that such a people would tamely subordinate their legal system to foreign judges for no better reason than that the European chattering classes think it's a good idea ? Do you believe that such a nation would violate the principles of a constitution that has served it well for two centuries merely in order to accomodate your latest Big Idea to make the world perfect ? To the American people the ICC is a European abomination that the Democratic Party has had the political good sense to not touch with a ten foot pole. Never at any time during the election did Kerry or any leading Democrat say that he would enter the ICC or sign the Kyoto Treaty and their is no way any American Senate would ever ratify either of those abominations.

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Page 4/12