I'll let it go after this Powell. You can have the last word <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

You say, "US "needing" other countries to execute on national security or survival, all I can do is chuckle"

I say, The goodwill has a definite bearing on our ability to wage this war. Look at Pakistan vs. say, Saudi Arabia. Our scrutiny and castigation of SA (and much of it rightly so) has led to much more reluctance and draggin of feet to work with us in bringing international criminals to justice.

You say, "but in the US, the demonstrations are miniscule. They will have no effect on the future and have already been overshadowed by the actual war events"

I say, Not hardly! These demonstrations are some of the largest our nation has ever seen. As far as the demonstrations after these first few days of war go - larger in number and frequency than the final months of demonstrations that were critical in getting our men home from a useless (I'm choosing that word carefully to mean in terms of the end result) slaughter in Vietnam. "They will have no effect" is speculation. If the future involves our men being over there longer than we hoped and more lives lost than Americans can stomach I think the issues and grounds of anti-war protesting will be revisited with a whole new light cast on them and help hasten a change of plans. All said I pray to God it ends sooner than coming to this.

Your points on Blair, For the record, Brits supporting a war without a UN resolution was 20 some percent. With, 70 some percent.

You say, "The fact that Bush put the responsibility initially on the UN to disarm Bush shows that he does value having the world work together to fight evil"

I say I applaud Bush for giving the UN a kick in the pants. But why did he turn his back on the whole process? Time? What else? And how does that support your opinion that Bush wants to work together with the world? I say there's not single reason that he could have comprimised on that was worth sending our troops out there and putting them in danger.

You say, "Ego. They inflated his ego to think that he could control the world by lying and running circles around the UN security council. If we backed up our ultimatum with unity and threatened force as a united world front, there is a chance he would have backed down."

No offense Powell but if this is all about bringing his ego back down...I don't even know what to say. I think it brings up my original point. The reason the UN waffled is they dont take Hussein seriously - and I say rightly so. The world went on as usual the last twelve years. He should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity - but that shouldnt involve 300,000 troops. Our actual reasons for war as stated by the administration are unproven and very weak at best.

You say, "Israel isn't a threat to the American people"
Of course. But we're talking the violation of international laws that Bush wages this war over - of which Isreal among others is in violation. You did fail to answer for Korea and I am interested as to what your response to that would be. (I would have to assume that in your opinion, they should be next) You can suppose all you want what Saddam would do with WMD IF he has them. If he does, the facts are for the last twelve years he has done nothing with them, internationally speaking. I am saying that to myself and a large number of the rest of the world, the pretext for this war is hypocritical - and I speak for ALL the reasons we've declared war.

You say, "It has concerned me, my family and many of my friends. We weigh the possibility of terrorist attacks when we plan vacations and when I travel overseas. Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, all of the countries/groups that compose the axis of evil contribute to feelings of insecurity since these countries/groups have been identified as either sponsors of terrorism or suppliers. I will feel better when there is a democratic Iraq."

It concerns me as well but so does crossing my busy street. If "feelings" of insecurity are the pretext to pick our enemies and wage our wars we are opening an unmanageable can of worms.

You say, "If people are evil and decide to do evil, you punish them and make examples of them to others. If evil is met with destruction at every turn, eventually, future evildoers lose the resolve to do evil. That's how "law and order" works. Your reasoning applied to the case of punishing evil in the United States would mean that we should let murders and robbers to roam free and just try to avoid them and lock your doors. Please let me know in advance if you decide to run for Mayor of Atlanta. I need time to move."

No plans for mayor yet <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> I never said that international forms of justice should apply to domestic. Its a different animal. We are not soveriegn over the rest of the world. We are not the world's police force, supreme court, etc. - whether we think we are or not. Arabs have not committed acts of terror against us from the beginning of time. Terrorism is a reaction to something these people strongly oppose. What I am saying is if we are going to take up some righteous crusade against evil - we need to first at least consider what evils we are being accused of. Lets remove any reason for offense to these people, and in my opinion there have been and continue to be many.

You say, "No, my logic has not been applied in Israel."

Yes it has! Every intrusion with tanks and air power into the occupied territories is preceded by some statement to the effect. "We are moving in to destroy the terrorists capabilities to wage suicide attacks." If I understand you correctly you are saying Isreal is just playing along with the Palestinians/Arafat which doesnt make sense - please clarify. To finish the thought. The armored occupation inevitably ensues with more suicide attacks and followed by a statement from Hamas as to the reason being the most recent Isreali intrusion and resulting deaths and destruction of property. Its a vicious cycle that very clearly does not work. We should learn from it.

You say, "You have to improve living conditions for these people in order to eradicate this hatred."

Money is not the answer to these problems. It is, interestingly enough, "the root of all sorts of evil" This is a whole other debate on its own but I completey disagree with this statement. Look at the king of hatred - Bin Laden. Look at where the 9/11 terrorists came from - living conditions are not the issue.

You say, "Having allies is helpful but not necessary for success".

I point to my argument using the Pakistan/Saudi example. How could we have caught the latest creep in Pakistan if we were locked out of the country? For that matter, Pakistan is the one that got that guy. Whether we would have gotten him without thier help is highly debatable. But this strays from the point.

You say, "May God have mercy on your soul. If you can't tell the difference between good and evil in this war, then there is little hope for you. I'm sorry to be harsh, but it has to be said."

May God have mercy on all our souls. "Terror"/ evil is relative. In the mid 80's Rumsfeld was embracing Hussein and handing over the biological ingredients with the intent and full knowledge that they would be turned into chemical weapons that would be used against military and civilians alike in Iran. This is no secret. Try telling to Joe Mohammed in Iran who is permanently impaired from the ordeal, who's kids have a multitude of neurological disorders, whose wife was killed, etc that the US isn't a sponsor of terror. I am not one to hold to past mistakes but for crying out loud, the same guy that orchestrated all those atrocities is now running Gulf WarII! And for the record he made no apology for it as I watched him on that talk show yesterday.

Your last two counters - fair enough. I'm not going to pursue it other than in regards to my statement about newfound support of US after we started our attack - it is a logical deduction.

Its been good as well as enlightning. You have personally salvaged my image of the "pro-war" crowd as one consistenting entirely of dittoheads. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> Its good to know some folks are thinking this through beyond the rhetoric...

Now come and get me! <img border="0" alt="[Mr.T]" title="" src="graemlins/mrt.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Shiner]" title="" src="graemlins/shiner.gif" />

<small>[ March 24, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: bretwalda ]</small>