WHY?

I assume that one of the threads you are referring to is the discussion on Cyber Terrorism.

I posted the following comment there, and think it is valid to add it to this thread.

There is a paradox of perception about the USA.

First, more people than we desire, want to immigrate to the US to take advantage of the opportunities that are available in the US.

Then, there is the perception of those who have been wronged (or feel they have been wronged) by the US.

I have a lot of empathy for anyone trying to sort out the reality of current world politics.

That said, the US DOES have a large image issue world-wide.

The majority of the US people, and most of our leaders desire a world of peaceful coexistence.

Yet, our government continually makes alliances of convenience to achieve short term goals.
When we support governments that violate our basic code of human rights and ethics, how can we expect the rest of the world to trust us.
I am reminded of the old line "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

Next, many of our businessmen view foreign countries and people as a cheap resource to exploit where they are free of labor and environmental regulations.

Is it any wonder, that a significant numberof people do not trust the US?

Further, it should come as no surprise that a few fanatics are willing to die in attempts to destroy the US.

Chas

I do not want to see the open exchange of ideas throttled. To me, the Internet is an enabler of the greatest opportunity mankind has ever had. The opportunity to exchange perspectives, person to person, without regard to where we may have been born, raised, work, or live. Never before have so many people had this opportunity.

Along the way, we will all forget that a proper exchange involves give and take. Following the Golden Rule, an idea that seems to exist in all cultures I have encountered, I suggest we use care before posting in hopes that the intent of our statements are clear. Likewise, I suggest we accept that all of us are fallible, and that we try hard to find an acceptable intent in the postings we read.

When that fails, perhaps the better response is the private email to the individual instead of an escalation of emotion in a public response.

I have a great deal of respect for almost every individual who has posted on this forum. Outside of a very few who treat this area as a graffiti wall, even those ideas I completely disagree with have taught me new insights into my own beliefs.

Ideas are like waves. Over time, they break down the hardest rocks. This includes the rocks some us of have in our heads and in our hearts. I have already found some cracks in my own.

... are always wrong.
As IT professionals we have much in common, and fora such as these are a great way to foster that community, regardless of nation, religion etc. etc.
However, life cannot be broken off into little unrelated compartments. If my contribution to a technical discussion helps someone organising a terrorist network, it impacts on other parts of life (or death).
I've found that the USA citizens (not Americans - musn't lump in Canada, Mexico etc.) I've met have been good people. It's just that as a nation, the USA does so much that I really don't like. I abhor terrorism, but bullying isn't too good either. US trade is often protectionist, anti-competitive, and driven by domestic politics, rahter than international politics. I am not surprised that many nations have issues with Uncle Sam. Microsoft's marketplace bullying is repeated by US business interests throughout the world. The arms manufacturers, for example, are happy to sell, and it makes for good trade figures. Oil companies are happy to buy, because the domestic consumer wouldn't want to sacrifice gas-guzzling convenience for world peace.

Whew! Sorry guys I like Americans, it's the bl00dy USA I can't stand.

of the world, warts and all. The horrific realities of life in other nations is often hidden away behind a wall of state secrecy, while we make ours into reality T.V. series' on prime time.

I can understand the misconceptions of others with the violent, threatening, and morally bankrupt view of America that we export.

However, When we are not judged by the "baywatch" world wide syndication, we are much more benign in word and deed.

Nation building:
No vanquished foe in human history fared as well as Germany and Japan.

Humanitarian:
In our efforts to prevent mass starvation in Somalia, we shed blood in most public and humiliating fashion. Any nation whose compassion were limited would never bother to attempt such a thing again. Now the Afghani war on terror includes food drops simultaneously with bombing.

Technology:
The Internet is a product of the American Defense Advanced Research Agency. Now it is a vital path for national and personal communication globally.
The only viable treatment regimen for HIV was developed by American Pharmaceutical companies and is now being made available to African victims at American taxpayer's expense.

The U.S. pays the highest dues of any United Nations member, even though the U.N. acts contrary to our interests time and time again.

Suffice it to say, we have no equal with regard to the good we do in this world. This being the case, when America sees fit to place it's troops in harm's way, you can be sure that there is principle behind it.

When France and Germany equal our contribution to the world, then they have a legitimate voice to criticise how we do it. Until then, they should accept that if they are unwilling to help when the going gets ugly, they should at least have the dignity to stand aside and accept their irrelevance.

I will not mention specifics, as other postings to this discussion have already refered to a few of the not-so-perfect aspects of the USA. But if you think that the self-appointed leader of the Free World is lily-white, then you are tragically ignorant of the history of your own country and its various dealings internationally.
So Islamic terrorist martyrs flew into the World Trade Centre, killings thousands of people. I would fully agree that America can't just sit back and take such a vicious act without some form of retaliation.
But just spare a moment's thought for what we have to live with in Australia: a Prime Minister (John Howard) who is determined to start a war with Iraq, who has made Australia a target for terrorist attacks byjust opening his big mouth all the time, and with no reason for supporting Uncle Sam other than the hope that the USA will rescue us if we are ever invaded.

It’s said that politics makes strange bedfellows. This nonsense about America being a one-time supporter of Sadam Hussein is born out of political naivet?. I suppose that at one time the enemy (Iraq) of our enemy (Iran) was our friend, but only because of a current and common self-interest. But that was then, this is now. History shows how quickly events can change alliances.

Countries form alliances not because they have common interests, but rather common self-interests. When their self-interests change, it also redefines their alliances. Look at how often and quickly alliances have changed. Britain and America were one-time foes. We are now best of friends. The Soviets were our ally during WWII, but we later became foes. How about France and Germany? The Germans, once out to destroy the French, are now really in bed with them. I could go on, but the list would be too long.

But all this notwithstanding, even if (a very qualified and conditional if) the U.S. supported Iraq in their war against Iran, I’d say therefore what? Therefore we do nothing? Therefore we sit idly by and let this madman develop his weapons and give them to his ally who unleashes one in downtown Chicago, London, or Sydney? Then what? Well then, these same naysayers would say that we (the U.S.) could have - should have - done something.

A nation, any nation, only looks out for its self-interest. The political challenge is to find ways to maintain that self-interest while not infringing on the self-interest of others. When that happens, there’s peace. When it does not happen, and if diplomatic efforts fall short of maintaining each self-interest, there’s war. So to discern the reason for a nation’s stance on whether or not that nation is in favor of going to war with Iraq, one must ask, what self-interest do they have at stake? The answers are interesting. Interesting indeed.

The seperation of American people from the American government is something I never want to see- externally or internally! :)

Mallard:

I am a person who believed/s??? that the net contained no barriers between countries, race, religion, etc. There are no prejudices online, unless you have an AOL host;) JK...

In all seriousness though. I am beginning to learn that this is no longer the case.

My example: I was in IRC, I was adding people to my bots. I had a guy that was a friend of a friend of mine, so I was going to add him. When I looked up his information, I noticed that it was (name blanked for privacy)!****@knows.where.osama.is.but.wont.tell.the.goverment.la There are no typos in that, that's exactly as it was. I let him know, kindly I may add, that I would NOT add that into my networks.

I was questioned on it, and we had some choice words with each other. I decided that since we were on the net, I would drop it, but he would not have access to the botnet. The next day, I still could not stop thinking of the night before and his host. I finally came down to, if I didn't do anything,then I was just as guilty and a piece of crap as he was for promoting that.

Needless to say, he is no longer allowed in ANY channel that I belong to and have Ops in. He's been blacklisted with IMMEDIATE bans in place.

It was a very sad day for me that I felt I had to do that, but that was where I drew a line in the sand. I feel that I did the right thing, but I still have a hard time with it. I don't believe that the net is a place for these types of things. It should just be ones andzero's.

As my father tells me all the time, People like Colinluck are entitled to the opinions and feelings. That is what he fought for. He fought so others in the world would have that freedom. Personally, that's a lot for me to choke down. I have a hard time sitting back and listening to people downtalk our country.

? NOT like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled massesyearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

God bless America

-duck

that we've come to expect from the French. Well, lets ignore that and deal with content....

WWII,
Yes, the US was late in entering the war, only doing so after Pearl Harbor. As we armchair historians know, there was a large isolationist leaning in the United States brought upon by the thousands of of servicemen we lost in WWI. Remember they were only a little more than a generation apart. The Empire of Japan was a part of the Axis powers, having signed nonagression treaties with Germany andItaly. After Pearl Harbor, we declared war on the Axis powers and decided to "beat Hitler first".

As for entering the war late, there is only one argument necessary, Maginot Line. The treaty of Versailles ending WWI placed strict limits on Germany's offensive capabilities. France chose to ignore the German rearmament at their peril. This buildup took place over several years and was well known. This being the case, who was asleep at the switch?

The Revolutionary War:
As for the MarquisDe Lafeyette assisting in our revolution, he is heralded in our history books and his contribution to our independence is remembered to this day. The cynical folks among us might question motives, in light of the numerous wars between England and France during that time, but I'll let it slide. One might also consider that France also had colonial designs on the new world, but that couldn't have had anything to do with the decision to disrupt England's control over their colonies would it?

Gulf War II:
As for fears of civilian casualties, terrorism, mideast instability, and weapons of mass destruction, That's what this is all about! The end result of this action is intended to alleviate all 4.

If the second gulf war kills one million, it will still be less than Saddam Hussein has killed since his despotic reign began.

The connection between Saddam and terrorist groups has been made. Removing him from power will destroy a hiding place for terrorists and undercut their effectiveness.

Saddam has every intention to unite the middle east under his control. He will destroy a large portion of it and kill millions trying. I suspect that this might destabilize the region.

As for WMD, better to take them out now than to give him an opportunity to use them on us later.

Statistics of those against action:
Let's draw a historical parallel. Even after Hitler attacked Poland and was preparing to invade France, Winston Churchill was repeatedly bashed by the British press for calling for war. When the Germans asserted that they had no designs on the UK, only the consolidation of the continent, the criticism of Churchill continued. The press called it "sitzkrieg". We all now know that war was the right course of action.

Before Gulf War I, our press predicted tens of thousands of casualties among our fighting men. As we all know, this wasn't even close. Those folks were wrong then, and there is no reason to believe that the next action will be very different.

Let's consider the events thusfar. The current round of weapons inspections would not be taking place without the threat of US action. The American troop buildup in the gulf is the only thing that is forcing Saddam to be as open as he has been. There is still an outside chance that Saddam will be forced into exile or be taken out in a coup.

Suffice it to say that the threat of action is the only thing Saddam responds to. The UN resolutions were (and are) a joke, and interpreted as weakness without tanks and bombs behind them. The latest resolutions wouldn't have happened if not for the actions of President George Bush. The UN failed to live up to its own resolutions and only began acting to prevent irrelevance.

People are by nature panicky and lazy, and require looming , obvious, and immediate threats to spur action. The intelligence prompting this action cannot be revealed in sufficient detail to cause large scale call to arms. That is what leadership is, the judgement and courage to act in the face of apathy. Our President has that in abundance.

Mr. Chirac on the other hand, is walking down the same primrose path his predecessors did before the world wars.

Statistics of those against action:
Let's draw a historical parallel. Even after Hitler attacked Poland and was preparing to invade France, Winston Churchill was repeatedly bashed by the British press for calling for war. When the Germans asserted that they had no designs on the UK, only the consolidation of the continent, the criticism of Churchill continued. The press called it "sitzkrieg". We all now know that war was the right course of action.

Before Gulf War I, our press predicted tens of thousands of casualties among our fighting men. As we all know, this wasn't even close. Those folks were wrong then, and there is no reason to believe that the next action will be very different.

Let's consider the events thusfar. The current round of weapons inspections would not be taking place without the threat of US action. The American troop buildup in the gulf is the only thing that is forcing Saddam to be as open as he has been. There is still an outside chance that Saddam will be forced into exile or be taken out in a coup.

Suffice it to say that the threat of action is the only thing Saddam responds to. The UN resolutions were (and are) a joke, and interpreted as weakness without tanks and bombs behind them. The latest resolutions wouldn't have happened if not for the actions of President George Bush. The UN failed to live up to its own resolutions and only began acting to prevent irrelevance.

People are by nature panicky and lazy, and require looming , obvious, and immediate threats to spur action. The intelligence prompting this action cannot be revealed in sufficient detail to cause large scale call to arms. That is what leadership is, the judgement and courage to act in the face of apathy. Our President has that in abundance.

Mr. Chirac on the other hand, is walking down the same primrose path his predecessors did before the world wars.

The two first met in 1975, when Chirac was prime minister for the first time, and almost instantly warmed up to one another. Chirac became the first French leader to make an official visit to Baghdad that year, and to deepen his ties with Saddam whowas vice president and "strongman" at the time.

Saddam showed his appreciation by approving a deal under which Iraq committed to granting French oil companies a number of privileges plus a 23 percent share of Iraqi oil. Chirac repaid the favor byapproving the construction of Iraq's first nuclear-power center, Tammuz, near Baghdad. The project subsequently emerged as the core of Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

The friendship forged between the two men proved profitable for bothsides. France sold an estimated $20 billion worth of weapons, including Mirage fighters, to Iraq, and emerged as Iraq's biggest trading partner, in a wide-range of civilian goods and services, after Russia. In exchange, Iraq focused on France as itslargest oil market in Europe.

Source:

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/123

Self-interests indeed.

>Your statement, ?it is equally naive to imply >that we have not supported Hussein and others?, >begs the question, who is implying such a thing? >I?m not

I'm glad you are not :) BTW, I didn't say you or GB or anyone else specifically was, just that it was equally naive, which apparantly you are agreeing that it is.

>In reference to (as you said) ?long-term global >thinking? and ?a more enlightened form of self->interest?, I think that borders on Polly Anna, >pie in the sky thinking. Gee,can?t we just all >get along? Let?s just give peace a chance. Make >love, not war.

Although I must admit that given the choice I would much prefer making love to going to war (is there anyone who wouldn't?) War is a reality of our world. I wouldn't say the Swiss, the Scandinavians, and many other long term global thinking countries are "Poly Anna", but actually thinking in a more less immature way.

>It?s all-nice to think about, and it?s nice to >hope for, but it has no basis in reality.I seem >to remember a guy in China standing in front of >a tank wanting to give peace a chance ? he was >soon lying down behind it.

Yes, but Nelson Mandela and Mohatma Ghandi had great success. Do you deny it can work, just because it doesn't always?

cont.

>The problem with ?global? long-term thinking is >obvious. Everyone (globally) has different ideas >and different perspectives. And that?s not >likely to change.

It is changing now. And we in technology are supplying the vehicle. If you look at the world, we are more together in language, ideology and ways of life than ever before in recorded history. Do you really belive that cultures are as different from each other as they were in 200 years ago?

>I?m all for having some national long-term >goals, but they have to be realistic and >achievable

I'm glad you feel this way, so do I. I am willing to work towards this and to break it down into as many small, realistic and achievable steps as it takes. I am not giving up though, or sitting idly and wishing it would "magically" happen or someone else will do it, nor am I letting the unpredictable nature of the world nor the tyrants who would have it otherwise get me down, afraid, and hiding in my cave. :)

Besides, we do have National Long Term Defense Goals and they work. The Cold War was a great example of power in a long term relatively peaceful operation. I am just saying that we need to really look at the CIA track record and maybe adjust our practices a bit. It's notworking as well as it could.

"Therefore, I place this on the table for anyone to pick up, If you think we are just stupid Americans prove it....Take your best shot lay it out here and see what happens. Lets get this silliness out of the way so we can get on with life already. "

Seems like we aren't getting a lot of proof so far :) Is it helping us get on with our lives?

I'm having a hard time not being condescending here, but the 1.2 percent of exports is not surprising in light of the fact that there is an EMBARGO in place on Iraq. Contracts not paid? What trade is going on that is not being paid?

I suspect that there is trade going on in violation of the embargo, and France is afraid of losing monopolistic status. If Saddam, (a personal friend of Chirac) is deposed, those contracts are null and void. The oil is sold to the liberators and France loses. IfFrance can get the embargo dropped, then they continue on trading in preferred basis with Saddam. Better to buy time and hope the world loses interest and eventually the embargo drops. This is precisely what France's actions indicate it wants.

Personally, I hope that the check for the Osirak nuclear plant bounced.

As for the opinions of American "statesmen",

Jimmy Carter
It was he who brokered the deal responsible for the arming of N. Korea. In response to the seizure of or embassy and hostage taking in Iran, his response was to leave the lights off on our national christmas tree. It took a the threat of a real president coming into power to achieve the hostage's release on inaugeration day.

Tom Daschle
Held up the Homeland Security Act for several months because the bill didn't help his union constituancy. Truly not the actions of a statesman.

Hillary Clinton
Wife of the President when the disasterous N.Korean deal took place. She failed to speak out on the Homeland Security Act delays and then complains that the Bush administration isn't doing enough to protect us.

Bill Clinton
Totally failed to respond when Saddam threw out the UN weapons inspectors. claimed success on the disasterous N. Korean deal. Repeatedly lied to the American people and was an embarassment in the eyes of the world.

The fears that terrorism will increase due to the war:
A free Iraq will be one less country for terrorists to train, hide, and operate. At the very least, the Palistinian suicide bombers won't be getting $25,000 for kiling Israelis. As for the hardcore Islamists, 911 occurred while we were leaving Iraq alone. Sometimes inaction is harmful too.

Containment:
10 years of broken agreements and manipulation show containment to be a falsehood. Saddam was in the process off fielding newer and better WMD, not disarming.

It would be hard to implement stability / democracy
Difficult is not impossible. A statesman knows that sometimes goals are hard to achieve. A statesman proceeds anyway. Were I Arab, I would be insulted that westerners believe that I were not capable of democracy.

Democracy is not hard, it is hard to do well. Even though the French seem incapable of electing good leaders (if the last 100 years are any indication), they would deny the Iraqi people an opportunity to try.

France is Iraq's largest trading partner. ($650 million in French trade with Iraq in 2001.)

Not only that, but France's state-controlled TotalFinaElf Petroleum Company has negotiated deals to develop major Iraqi oil fields. Those deals, on hold pending removal of trade sanctions against Baghdad, might not survive the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Source:

http://www.businesstoday.com/business/business/cap02172003.htm

France's rhetoric reeks of greedy and unprincipled self-interest.

Well I am quite surprised and flattered that a wee voice from "down under" could arouse such hot-blooded patriotism in the USA. I was referring to the USA in general as the self-appointed leader of the Free World.
I don't read American newspapers, so I don't know what propaganda they feed you. But in a Sydney paper a few weeks ago there was a story which included the statement by George Bush: "How I will rule the world." Well if that's not a declaration of self-appointed leadership, I guess I must have missed a few grammar classes in primary school.
I would also like to add that countless Australian servicemen and women have died in wars that imposed no direct threat to Australia, but in which we chose to participate because they posed a threat to democracy in general. You might try looking up in your history books about Australia's involvement in World Wars I and II, and Vietnam.

"In bed with" is pretty strong... It can just as easily be interpretted as trying to find a [more] peacefulsolution. That's how 'diplomacy' works, right?

While all we computer geeks (both qualified and self-appointed) rage a violent war of words on this website, perhaps we could spare a moment to think of the possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who are likely to die if there isa war and it turns nasty. Whilst Hussein is unquestionably a cruel and sadistic dictator, a fair dinkum war will most likely kill a lot more of his people than he could ever manage to do on his own.

Admin

I wanted to thank you for showing me an angle that I had not seen before.

I still do not approve of the Anti-War protests. I see them as direct protests against our Country and our Troops, BUT I never even considered what you stated above.

You may not care that I say this, but I do understand why you did what you did. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. And I wanted to say thank you for showing this to me! It helps me with my internal struggle with this whole bucket of mess we're all currently in right now.

And I will say, I agree, peace would be ideal. Unfortunately in life, you know when the line has been crossed and there is no longer any turning back. I fear that we crossed that line long ago. We are down to the point that someone is going to take a whooping. Personally, I don't want it to be us, so I feel we need to do something NOW.

Mrafrohead

My statement was intended to remove Nelson Mandela from being included in the company of
Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was a peaceful and principled man, while Mandela actually advocated violence and sabotage against the government. (That’s why he was sent to prison in the first place.) And do you know about the acts of violence committed by his (first) wife, Whinny? Moreover, Mandela abhors America, blames America, and criticizes America at every opportunity. Why the media treats him like such a darling just baffles me.

In regards to Gandhi, I don't have to agree with someone's politics to admire him. But even Gandhi disapproved of State sponsored socialism. He found Marxist communism unacceptable both as a political philosophy and asa basic principle of social organization. He could never look to the State, however conceived and constituted, as an instrument for imposing communist or socialist ideals.

State sponsored socialism in any form or degree never has worked and never will. But if a group of people wants to form a community of equality and sharing (a commune), I'd say knock yourselves out. But don't expect anyone else to support it if they don’t want to.

You asked, (since I admire Gandhi) “I don't get why you don't think peace works”. Gandhi would get punched in the nose and not retaliate. I wouldn’t. I admire it, but I don’t take it to such extremes. And Gandhi wasn’t always right. He thought that violent means couldnever produce non-violent ends. Japan versus the USA proved that wrong. (It’s mostly his thought control that I admire and study – controlling your thoughts to control your actions to determine your outcome. It’s on a personal level, not political.)

Peace only works if all parties involved want it to work – and the terms of that peace are agreeable to all parties involved. If anyone thinks that can b

There have been mostly well thought out and defensible arguments on both sides, but what I haven't seen is the alternative.

This situation can be approached using logic. With the interest and the intellegence reflected in the postings, perhaps we should walk through the inputs, actions, and outputs. For simplicity, I will use Iraq instead of Saddam Hussein even though I do not feel blame lies with the Iraqi people.

Initial inputs for consideration.
1) UN Security Council Resolutions of2002 at http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
2) Referenced UN SC Resolutions in above at http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
3) Other UN documents at http://www.un.org/documents/
4) Iraq actions in regard to UN since 1990 (should we go back further?). Need specific neutral or opposing references.

The next item is actions - taken and proposed. This will impact the last item.

Outputs - both what has occurred to date and a best estimate of what will occur is a given course of action is followed.

This can be a Boolean equation.

Doing this alone, I see little alternative to war. Someone please demonstrate a viable alternative.

Here is the article you are, most likely, refering to.

-----Article-----

Bush: how I'll rule the world

The Bush Administration has spelt out its determination to enforce America's global domination, insisting it will allow no other power tochallenge its military and economic supremacy.

In a 33-page document, published overnight Sydney time, President George Bush says the US will never allow its military might to be challenged the way it was during the Cold War.

It says "the President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago".

The document, titled The National Security Strategy of the United States,declares the policies of containment and deterrence - staples since the 1940s - all but dead. There was no way in this changed world to deter those who "hate the United States and everything for which it stands".

--------

Link to article:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054963259.html

A reporter is commenting on the new document, "National Security Strategy of the United States".

The "rule the world" is not a quote from President Bush, but rather the interpretationof the reporter and/or editor. Talk about a misrepresentation. This one takes the cake.

You seem like a person who tries to stay well informed, as I do. I haven't yet read the 33 page document (National Security Strategy of the United States) butI will tonight. I'm glad you posted this issue, as it brought this new document to my attention. Here's a link to it - from the horse's mouth (an American saying regarding originality). Even though I have not yet read it, I'll still wager that Fosters that President Bush never said that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

(Don't forget to remove those pesky spaces that might appear in the pasted URLs.)

Individuals have significantly more freedom than they realize. However, it has to be exercised. It begins with each individual acting on his or her beliefs in all areas, not just the large movements.

I suspect the vast majority of those who aremarching against a war in Iraq have missed many opportunities to reduce the tensions through personal acts. Think oil is a root cause? Give up your own car in favor of public transportation, reduce the heating and cooling demands in your own home,apply alternative fuels at every opportunity. Think your leaders are not representing you? Vote. Join and participate in whatever political organization comes closest to your beliefs and work to move them more towards your position. Write your representatives with your concerns, desires, and alternatives to their positions.

In the 60's and 70's, many opposed the war in Vietnam. My respect goes to those who went to prison or left the US rather than participate, and to those who offered rational objections.

I think you're right on this one Max. The french are never adament about something unless there is a gain to be made. The 20th century was not frances shining hour for world leaders and foreign diplomats. It is always what France can gain from their involvement that they are looking at. Now I know that can be said for all countries, but my point is I kinda feel like ceaser, "et tu France?" There is no doubt that france wants to retain favored nation status with Iraq; oil fuels the motor ofthe world and when there is less and less to go around, its good to be a "buddy".
The problem with france is they hold the Veto and will use it to cover themselves, this is fact. But their bigger problem is GWB is a texas oil man, he can smell a lie like a fart in a car and he isn't buying the new load of horse dung. Chirac is a Pig with a big ole honking socialist chip on his shoulder, you wait and see. When the bullets start flying he will be the first to hope ship and send his buddy saddam up the river.

-duck

And that should have been done ten years ago!

Then we wouldn't be in this big pile of stinkin shite that we're in right now.

Mrafrohead

Brinkmanship: The art or practice of pushing a dangerous situation or confrontation to the limit of safety especially to force a desired outcome.

The Cold war is generally refered to as the stand-off between the USA and USSR that lasted from the end of WWII until late 1980s when the Berlin Wall was torn down and the USSR breakup occurred. It was a war of threats, and a war of massive weapons build-ups (nuclear weapons) pointed at each other. It was a war of building as many ICBMs (Inter-Continental Balistic Missiles) as possible and targeting them on the other's country. It was a war of wits and nerve. It was a war of spys. It was a war dependent on massive spending on new and updated weapons programs.

Neither the US or the USSR flinched enough to ignite the first launch. But it was a close call in 1962 when The Soviets attempted to deploy these weapons to Cuba. President Kennedy initiated a naval blockade and threatened the Russians with a nuclear strike if they continued. Theybacked down (but the US agreed to remove their nucs from Turkey.)

It was a war won by the USA because they (we) had the deeper poskets and, in my opinion, the better political alternative. And not a single shot was fired.

or different is a mixture of facts and personal opinion I think. The way history is recorded and presented is quite a powerful social force. However, I will make an attempt.

I do not believe we are in a similar place to WW1 or WW2. My primary reason for this is that we nothing akin to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor in WW2 nor even the sinking of the R.M.S. Lusitania to begin our entry into WW1.

A big difference at this time is that it was generally socially unthinkable that a large passenger ship would be sunk by direct order of a country at war. There were also a lot of American's sympathetic to Germany at the time, and the Nazi party was early on was even financially supported by some wealthy Americans and seen as a good thing for Germany and Europe by a number of people here. Of course that attitude changed later.

Germany did make some attempt to keep passengers off the Lusitania, however, in the climate and for many reasons at the time, Americans boarded and a German submarine sunk it by direct order. It was not an accident. It was not Terrorists acting outside or on the fringes of their government. It was a direct national order. So was Pearl Harbor. In both circumstances, we were attacked directly by nations we retaliated against.

We had a lot of support and gained allies. It was clear in both of these wars, both to us and to the world that there was necessity.

The climate now is not clear worldwide. No nation gave an official order to attack the Twin Towers on 911. That is why we have support from much of the International community in seeking out and bringing to justice the perpetrators, but not to attack whole countries over this act.

Essentially, we are not in the same state of the world as before the World Wars right now because we do not have a lot of support internationally because we are refusing to begin a war, or even conduct ourselves in one by Allied or NATO conventions as well as UN or International Law.

To me, this is a fundamental difference. Believe me, if this was similar to the beginning of either of those wars you would find it quite incredible how hawkish I would be.

to my previous list of CIA projects gone (in my view) wrong. I think we were more successful at helping to bring about change in Japan and Germany mainly because it was not a covert CIA exercise. That may be just my opinion, but the track record isn't good, especially if you look directly at what documents are de-classified.

So, why don't they call it Blinkmanship?

This was an excellent thread that brought out many opinions on by far the most important event of this century. All views have wisdom as well as fallacies. Never have I learned more about world history than in this thread. Regardless of anyones beliefs or borders we all desire our leaders to make this situation go away. I am an American with a friend hidden away in a tent somewhere ready to defend to protect the peace. I pray that he may never witness the horrors of war, but understand and appreciate his sacrifice for the greater good. I'm not entirely sure of the evidence that my government claims that Saddam is up to, but on the same token I'm quite sure he is guilty and is manipulating the world to play his sick little game. With or without war only plays into his hands and all of the countries of our world are making decisions based on money and power, and not peace (opinion). As for people opposing the war, I feel it's necessary, lets face it the hippies had it right and showed their patriotism through morality during Vietnam. As I read these threads from everyone from many different places everyone cited morality in their arguments defending the various countries. My question is this.. If we all agree to stand by our convictions based on morality, then why cant we all play nice with one another? The dinosars ruled the world at one time and they went away, maybe it's our turn, after all history repeats it's self and we are like the fleas on the dog that Carlin joked about that will get shaken off to start a new, comments?

Maxwell, I want you to know. I have been looking for an answer to what the coldwar was since high school. I FINALLY found my answer.

Thank you very much for that! I finally understand now.

While we're on a role here.. I have another question. This one is probably going to ruffle feathers though. Please understand, I DONT mean it in any type of bad way.

What I have read of Communism. It sounds like a very good idea, but it doesn't seem to work. Does anyone know why that is??? In theory from what I understand about it. Every one is equal. Which means, no one would suffer, all would be happy. There would be no rich and poor. No lines between groups. All would be rich. Since there is no grouping of people, everyone should get along as there wouldn't be any rivalry. Why is it that freedom and communism can't work together? If my interpretation of communism is accurate.

I know this isn't the place to ask this type of stuff, but I figure this thread is off the beaten path and I have learned so much from it. These are all questions I have carried for a long time, and never found answers that made sense.

Also, please be nice. I really don't mean this in any type of bad way. I am just looking to make sense of it.

Thank you once again,

Mrafrohead

Thank you Mallard.

Isn't that funny. I have been looking for an answer to this question for YEARS, and I finally found two answers in the same day. The irony of it;)

Mrafrohead