The problem with Iraq is that you have three big ethnic groups there, and they don't like each other. Most experts think that might lead to a civil war.

Of course, this is not a reason to keep a dictator in his seat. But remember: as with most dictators in those countries, most of them came into power because the US helped these people in their seats by providing arms and -in the case of Iraq- the basic tools to make biological and chemical weapons. Same counts for the Taliban, these former muhajedin got their arms too from the US.

Saddam isn't a treath to the rest of the world. He is for his own people however. Problem is, we can name 50 other countries in the world with more or less the same situation.

So why Iraq? Because Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the World. Indeed, Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country. So don't start about the UN resolution. That's just a scam to bomb Iraq.

Don't start about the UN too. In my opinion, the UN should have interfered when Saddam sloughtered 5000 of his own people back in the eighties. That's still considered one of the biggest genocide operations in the past century. We can name a few others too, and one of those is the problem that nobody dears to interfere with Israel. With 10 million Palestine refugees as a result.

The problems in the Middle East are not easy to solve. Frankly, I don't believe America is the one who can and has to solve those problems.

Look at Afghanistan. Is that problem resolved? No, there are still fights going on there, it is again the biggest heroin producing country and besides Kabul the rest of the country is a mess. Rebuilding that country cost Billions of dollars. We gave a few million. Ironic that 1 day of war in the Gulf cost us about 1 Billion dollar. The initial cruise missile strike America considers cost 600 million dollar alone.

4 days of war is equal to rebuilding a whole country. People won't grow heroin if they have enough money to do otherwise.

I never, and will never believe in soldiers who tell you that they will bring piece.

The other problem we have is that we only see western media here. If European countries are indeed for the free speech as they say, why not give us Al Jazira with English subtitles here, so we can judge for ourselves. We are sensored here as much as most far east countries.

Romanian people have been suppressed for decades but they freed themselves, the dutch freed themselves from Spain, but it took 80 years.

In the end, the Arabs will free themselves from their anti democratic goverments and dictators.

That will be a problem for us indeed, cause the western world helped those dictators and such in their seats. We will have to pay a price for that. Sad thing is, when looking at Afghanistan we still haven't learned dick.

Anyway dictature never last so much , except in north corea, no dictator ever had a succesor, so what about waiting 15 years more that saddam retire, or become so weak that an inside opposition take power.

You may say :" What about iraqis ? they would like to be set free sooner ", but it is
better than dying in a war in which many civilians will die for sure , but so sure for saddam.

The smartest thing to do should is to take into account that saddam will not retire in bad
conditions what about offering him an opportunity to retire and saving the face as regards as iraqis : Something like a UNO congress in bagdad in which many arabs country
will participate with main detracting countries (UK/US).

If they offer choice to saddam between going to trial OR facing a war for sure he will
prefer to go for War , dictators need to save the face otherwise they are uncontrolable.

Sander, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with what you just said.

Except for one thing. About the UN, actually the basic idea behind the UN is that if one of the member states is attacked, all members will strike back. More than a 'world peace' (almost wrote piece here ;p damn you) organization, that is what the UN is for. However as soon as one of the member states starts talking about war they definately have to be involved, and in that case they should do their best to find a justification for that war which satisfies the other members, and if there isn't enough, try to avoid it. Other than the Americans, they don't suffer from a one-sided point of view on the situation and can much more clearly see the effects their actions will have on the region. I think the UN has a much better view on the 'instrument of war', its effects and the terrible aspects it carries with it, they see it as an 'ultimate solution' which should be avoided at all cost, although sometimes nessecary (on the latter I only agree to a certain extent). I saw the interview with Kofi Annan on TV a while ago and I really have a lot of faith in the wisdom of the UN to decide on these things. They also have the expertise and the means to verify the accusations, and as a delegation of countries all over the world and not only of the so-hated US they are more or less accepted by the local authorities.

I understand if the US tries to keep up the threat, which makes Iraque much more cooperative towards the UN inspectors. However they should not actually start the war. The problem is, I can't really tell if that is what the Americans are doing. Which could be the whole idea, ofcourse, because if I can't tell neither can Saddam ^_^.

Anyways, I don't so much think it is hypocritical that the UN didn't interfere when Saddam did the abovementioned genocide on his own people, but rather it is hypocritical of the US that they didn't interfere back then, but do when it involves large oil-countries like Kuweit or as soon as Iraque becomes too powerful and in their opinion too much of a threat to America. Oh, and ofcourse the UN doesn't solely consist of America, so in a way it's also hypocritical of the other powerful countries which are all for the war now. If I may mention one, the UK.

But again, on all the other points in your message, I fully agree. As long as Iraque doesn't do any terrible things like attacking another country or its own people, it should be solved locally. Ofcourse other countries all over the world can play a role in this, but more so as a helper than a threat. The way Clinton approached the Israel vs. Palestina conflict for example was a much more constructive one, and things were actually accomplished. Until Bush and Sharon became the new leaders, and now things are as bad again as they were before.

~Grauw

You're confusing the UN and NATO.

Aye, is that so... Hmz, you are right, I guess.

Okay, scrap my comments about the UN not being a 'world peace' organization. They are. Great! The rest stands. And with that done I can now say I really wholeheartedly agree with sander ^_^.

~Grauw

The longer this all takes, the more difficult I find it to legitimate the actions against Iraq, to be honest. At first, I was very pro war, but as days go by....I start thinking: why Iraq? Wasn't it Bin Laden they were after? And aren't there many more dictators around the globe who deserve some attention? Like Sander stated, it must have economical reasons. And I do have problems with that, yes.....Saddam is an easier target than Bin Laden. Is that the reason for this USA interest?

/me is confused what to think atm.....

Well...
We all invaded Yugoslavia for the war crimes going on there. Iraq has made more than 300.000 kurds disappear, so that alone would be reason enough!
Add to that the fact that they are still not disarming (after 12 years of constant pushing!!), I think the reasons become clearer by the day.

Yes, but still.....They were after Bin Laden and from the moment they started on hitting Iraq, the attention on Bin Laden was gone.....The media hardly even mentions him!

The media still mentions him whenever a new tape (audio or video) is released. For the other part, his whereabouts are unknown, so what do they have to report about?!
Rest assured various intelligence agencies throughout the world are probably on the eye out for him 24/7.

I heard yesterday, there are still some 16.000 american soldiers searching for him, yes......

I thikn they are targeting Iraq BECAUSE they can not get Bin Laden (yet). They got to keep the anti-terrorism engine running before people lose their attention (and thus their support) for it. And of course it are economical reasons. Remember the situation on Ambon about a year ago? People were slaughtering each other and the USA didn't want to intervene in this 'local problem'.

Uhm, IIRC that was not a case of a government against its own people. Which was the case in Yugoslavia and is the case in Iraq. Anyway... if you're going to start like that, then you might as well bring up Vietnam or whatever other situation the USA participated in.

It's a fact, choices must be made. You can't be everywhere all the time. You don't want that anyways! If you were the USA and three quarters of the world is complaining that you act as the world's policeman, you too would be very selective in what situations you're going to butt in.

Hmm so if the world expects them to be the policeman and asks them for help they do nothing and if the world doesn't ask a thing they trash the place? Sounds like real police to me!

LOL